Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rohtak.
Complaint No. : 66.
Instituted on : 10.06.2013.
Decided on : 15.05.2015.
Smt. Jagmati w/o late Sh. Gaje Singh r/o Village Balamba Tehsil Meham District Rohtak.
………..Complainant.
Vs.
- The Behalba Primary Agricultural Co-operative Society Ltd. Balamba.
- Krishak Bhatri Cooperative Limited Kribhko Bhawan Address: A-10, Sector-1, NOIDA-201301 Distt. Gautam Budh Nagar(Uttar Pradesh).
- M/s Bajaj Alliance Generalli Insurance Co. Ltd. R/o J-11/40 A-B Central Market, Part-11, Lajpat Nagar, New Delhi-110024.
……….Opposite parties.
COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986.
BEFORE: SH.JOGINDER KUMAR JAKHAR, PRESIDENT.
MS. KOMAL KHANNA, MEMBER.
Present: Complainant in person.
Opposite party No.1 exparte.
Sh. Manjeet Sindhu, Advocate for opposite party no.2.
Sh. Punit Chahal, Advocate for opposite party no.3.
ORDER
SH. JOGINDER KUMAR JAKHAR, PRESIDENT :
1. The present complaint has been filed by the complainant with the averments that her husband had purchased nine bags of Kribhko Fertilizer(Urea) on 27.07.2008 containing 50 kg. per bag from the opposite party. It is averred that the husband of the complainant had expired on 18.11.2008 i.e. after 4 months from the date of purchasing the alleged bags and as per the scheme of the opposite party the complainant was entitle for insurance claim of Rs.36000/- i.e. Rs.4000/- per bag on the alleged purchased bags but the same has not been paid to the complainant despite submitting the requisite documents with the opposite parties in the year 2008 and despite her repeated request. It is averred that opposite parties may kindly be directed to pay the insurance claim of 9 bags of Rs.4000/- per bag total Rs.36000/- alongwith interest, compensation and litigation expenses to the complainant.
2. On notice, opposite party no.1 did not appear and as such was proceeded against exparte vide order dated 07.02.2014 of this Forum. Opposite party no.2 in its reply has submitted that concerned Insurance Company Bajaj Allianz Insurance Co. Ltd. is liable to pay any amount of compensation to the complainant, if any. Answering opposite party is not liable to pay any amount of claim under the policy and the complaint against answering opposite party may kindly be dismissed with costs.
3. Opposite party no.3 in its reply has submitted that the complainant is not entitled for any insurance claim. It is averred that the claim was not submitted within period. The answering opposite party sent the letter dated 07.02.2009 and 26.03.2009 to insured for submitting the documents, but the insured/claimant not submitted the documents so the answering opposite party rejected the claim. It is averred that the claim of the complainant is not payable as per policy condition C-5a. It is averred that there is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite party. Opposite party prayed for dismissal of the complaint with costs.
4. Both the parties led evidence in support of their case.
5. Complainant in her evidence tendered her affidavit Ex.CW1/A and documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C5 and has closed her evidence. On the other hand, Ld. counsel for the opposite party no.2 in his evidence has tendered affidavit Ex.RW1/A, documents Ex.R1 to Ex.R2 and closed his evidence. Ld. counsel for the opposite party no.3 in his evidence has tendered affidavit Ex.RW1/3, documents Ex.R1 to Ex.R3 and closed his evidence.
6. We have heard ld. counsel for the parties and have gone through the material aspects of the case very carefully.
7. In the present case it is not disputed that as per bill Ex.C1 the complainant had purchased 9 bags of Kribhko Urea from opposite party no.2 on dated 27.07.2008. It is also not disputed that as per the reply and affidavit filed by the opposite party no.3, Gaje Singh husband of the complainant was insured with the opposite party no.3 vide policy No.OG-08-1113-9902-00000142 for the period from 01.12.2007 to 30.11.2008. The scheme of the opposite party is also placed on record as Ex.RW2 as per which “Compensation in the event of injury causing permanent total disablement or death for a sum of Rs.upto 4000/- per 50 kg. bag of fertilizer purchased through Cooperative and farmer service centers”. It is also not disputed that the husband of complainant Gaje singh had died in an accident. Copy of DD Report Ex.C3 is placed on file. After the death of Gaje Singh , complainant filed the claim with the opposite party but the opposite party no.3 vide its letter Ex.RW1 had repudiated the claim on the ground that “Original Cash memo towards purchase of Kribhco-Urea is not available which is a mandatory requirement towards the activation of Personal Accident Policy”. On the other hand opposite party no. 2 has placed on record copy of letter Ex.R1 and copy of fax detail Ex.R1 to prove that the requisite documents had already been sent to the opposite party no.3.
8. After going through the file and hearing the parties it is observed that the claim of the complainant has only been repudiated by the opposite party no.3 for want of some documents. On the other hand as per letter Ex.R1 it is proved that the requisite documents had already been sent to the opposite party no.3 on 15.05.2009 and later on 04.06.2009 & 31.12.2009 followed with clarifications. Moreover as per document Ex.R2 it is submitted that “Required documents had been sent to HAT for processing of final settlement of the claim as case had no deficient documents”. As such the repudiation of claim on the ground of non submission of documents which had already been sent to the opposite parties is illegal and amounts to deficiency in service. In this regard we have placed reliance upon the law cited in 2008(3)CLT 377 titled Dharmendra Goel Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has held that: “If a particular claim to compensation is possible on the material on record, it should not be denied on hyper technical pleas that claim was limited by complainant to a lower amount”. In view of the aforesaid law which is fully applicable on the facts and circumstances of the case it is observed that the repudiation of claim by the opposite party no.3 is illegal and unjustified and the complainant is entitled for the claim amount as per policy.
9. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, it is directed that opposite party No.3 shall pay the claim amount of Rs.36000/-(Rupees thirty six thousand only) along with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing the present complaint i.e. 10.06.2013 till its realization and shall also pay a sum of Rs.2200/-(Rupees two thousand two hundred only) as litigation expenses to the complainant maximum within one month from the date of decision failing which the opposite party no.3 shall be liable to pay interest @ 12% p.a. on the awarded amount from the date of decision. Complaint is allowed accordingly.
10. Copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of costs.
11. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced in open court:
15.05.2014.
................................................
Joginder Kumar Jakhar, President
..........................................
Komal Khanna, Member.
