Punjab

Sangrur

CC/437/2016

Baljit Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Bullan Multipurpose Co-operative Agriculture Service Society Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Shri Ramit Pathak

01 Nov 2016

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR.

                                                              

                                                Complaint No.  437

                                                Instituted on:    04.07.2016

                                                Decided on:       01.11.2016

 

Baljit Singh S/o Tara Chand son of Badama Singh, resident of House No.168, Village Bhullan, Thsil Moonak, Distt. Sangrur.

                                                        …Complainant

                                Versus

1.             The Bhullan Multipurpose Co-operative Agriculture Service Society Ltd. Bhullan, Tehsil Moonak, District Sangrur through its secretary.

2.             IFFCO TOKIO General Insurance Company Limited, Regd. Office IFFCO Sadan, C-1, District Centre, Saket New Delhi-110017 through its M.D./Authorised signatory.

3.             IFFCO TOKIO General Insurance Company Limited, Branch Office, Kaula Park, Sangrur through its Branch Manager/Authorised signatory.

                                                        ..Opposite parties

 

For the complainant  :       Shri Ramit Pathak, Adv.

For OPs No.2&3       :       Shri Darshan Gupta, Adv.

For OP No.1             :       Exparte.

 

Quorum:   Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

                Sarita Garg, Member

 

 

Order by : Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

 

1.               Shri Baljit Singh, complainant (referred to as complainant in short) has preferred the present complaint against the opposite parties (referred to as OPs in short) on the ground that the father of the complainant, namely, Tara Chand son of Badama Singh was the member of the OP number 1 vide card number 304 and all the members were insured under Sankat Haran Bima Policy of the OP number 2 for the bags of urea of Iffco Brand purchased by its members from the society in one season.   It is stated further that the members are insured for Rs.5000/- per bag of Urea.  Since no policy has been issued by OP number 1, but it was told that the member was insured for Rs.1,50,000/- (as he had purchased 30 bags of Urea).  Further case of the complainant is that father of the complainant,  namely, Tara Chand (referred to as DLA in short) died on 11.1.2015 in an accidental hit by an ox at his home on 10.1.2015, as such due to the accident, he/DLA  was admitted to Bhatia Nursing Home, Medical Enclave, Near Municipal Council Tohana and as such he died on 11.1.2015 due to the said injury.  It is further averred that due to the family customs, the post-mortem of the dead body was not conducted. Further case of the complainant is that thereafter the complainant approached the OP number 1 and lodged the claim and submitted the required documents, but  vide letter dated 10.3.2016, the complainant was directed by the Op to produce some documents, which were immediately provided.  But, despite approaching the OPs, the claim was not settled. Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the OPs, the complainant has prayed that the Ops be directed to pay to the complainant the claim amount of Rs.1,50,000/- along with interest @ 18% per annum from the date of death of the DLA till realisation and further claimed compensation and litigation expenses.

 

2.               Record shows that the OP number 1 did not appear and as such was proceeded exparte.

 

3.               In reply filed by Ops number 2 and 3, legal objections are taken up on the grounds that the complaint is not maintainable, that the complainant has no locus standi, that the complainant is estopped from filing the present complaint are taken up. On merits, it is admitted that though the claim was lodged by the complainant regarding the death of the DLA, was at the very late stage and without requisite documents.  It is stated further that the OP sent a letter dated 10.3.2016 asking the complainant to submit the post mortem report of Tara Chand deceased and the details of the fertilizer which were alleged to be purchased by the said Tara Chand, but the same were not provided.   It is further stated that the policy in question was introduced by the Op for the benefit of the farmers who purchased fertilizer during the period of 12 months preceding the date of accident during the currency of the scheme on different dates shall have an accumulative effect.  However, the maximum capital sum insured under the policies under similar schemes based on total quantity of fertilizer purchased from IFFCO and IPL taken together shall be limited to Rs.1,00,000/-. It is further stated that the serially numbered printed cash receipts or debit memo is not negotiable and the person whose name appears in this document shall be deemed to be the insured person.  It is stated that one Sankat Haran Bima cover for capital sum insured of Rs.4000/- for each and every purchase of IFFCO Fertilizer bag by any farmer subject to total maximum of Rs.1,00,000/- only to any farmer under the policy.  It is further stated that an event, which might become a claim under the policy, must be reported to the OP immediately and in any case within one month of the happening of such event.   But, in the present case, the complainant has violated the terms and conditions of the policy.  However, any deficiency in service on the part of the Op has been denied.

 

4.               The learned counsel for the complainants have produced Ex.C-1 copy of letter, Ex.C-2 copy of passbook, Ex.C-3 copy of receipt number 71, Ex.C-4 copy of cheque book, Ex.C-5 copy of counter foil of cheque, Ex.C-6 copy of blank cheque, Ex.C-7 copy of bill, Ex.C-8 copy of death certificate, Ex.C-9 copy of member report, Ex.C-10 copy of voter card, Ex.C-11 copy of register of member, Ex.C-12 copy of report dated 2.3.2015, Ex.C-13 copy of application, Ex.C-14 copy of affidavit, Ex.C-15 copy of indoor chart, Ex.C-16 copy of police report, Ex.C-17 copy of urea bag, ExC-18 copy of release order, Ex.C-19 affidavit and closed evidence. On the other hand, the learned counsel for OPs number 2 and 3 has produced Ex.OP2&3/1 copy of letter dated 10.3.2016, Ex.OP2&3/2 copy of terms and conditions of the policy, Ex.Op2&3/3 affidavit and closed evidence.

 

5.               We have carefully perused the complaint, version of the opposite parties, evidence produced on the file and written submissions and also heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties. In our opinion, the complaint merits acceptance, for these reasons.

 

6.               In the present case, the complainant has claimed an amount of Rs.1,50,000/- on account of the accidental death of the DLA as he was insured for Rs.5000/- per bag against the purchase of Iffco Urea, as in the present case the DLA had purchased 30 bags of the Urea.  It is further case of the complainant that the DLA Tara Chand died in an accidental death on 11.1.2015 due to accidental hit by an ox at his home on 10.1.2015 and accordingly the information was given to the OP, but the Ops did not pay the rightful claim of the complainant on the ground that the complainant did not submit the post-mortem report of the DLA.  Now, the question which arises for determination before us is whether the OPs can refuse/reject the claim on the ground of non submission of the post mortem report of the DLA by the complainant.

 

7.               OPs number 2 and 3 have admitted having issued the said policy and with regard to the other contents, the learned counsel has submitted that the same is the matter of record.  OPs number 2 and 3 has further submitted that the amount of Rs.4000/- for each and every purchase of Iffco Fertilizer bag by any farmer was payable and maximum claim payable to the complainant is upto Rs.1,00,000/- only, however, subject to the terms and conditions of the policy.

 

8.               It is on the record that the DLA was the member of the society i.e. Op number 1 as is evident from the copy of Kissan Credit card, which is on record as Ex.C-2.  Further Ex.C-3 is the copy of memo dated 22.5.2014, which shows that the DLA had purchased 30 bags of Urea from the Op number 1. Ex.C-8 is the copy of death certificate of Tara Chand. Ex.C-15 is the copy of indoor chart in respect of the DLA and Ex.C-19 is the affidavit of Baljit Singh, complainant.  The OP has also taken another objection that the complainant lodged the claim very late, but the Op has produced nothing on record to support such a contention, much less has not mentioned even the date of lodgement of the claim.  Moreover, the Hon’ble National Commission in CEO, Cholamandalam and another versus Abhijat Saini and another 2014(4) CPR 178 (NC) has held that the provisions of delay in informing the insurance company or lodging report with police are of little significance as these are of directory nature and not of mandatory nature.  In that case, vehicle damaged in the accident. To expert a person to immediately first rush to insurance company to inform about accident when his vehicle meets a very serious accident or causing death is too much and is beyond prudence of common man. Insurance company should take a decision in respect of any event or in respect of any eventuality keeping in view response by a reasonable and prudent man. Every decision taken by the service provider has to be tested on the anvil of terms of contract unless occurrence or information given by insurer is found to be afflicted with a malafide or falsehood, claim should be accepted. Provisions of delay in informing insurance company or lodging report with police are of little significance as these are of directory nature and not of mandatory nature.

 

9.               The learned counsel for the complainant has further contended vehemently that merely non producing of the post-mortem report itself is not sufficient to throw away the case of the appellants.  The post-mortem could have been conducted, had the deceased died in the hospital, but in the absence of that, there is nothing to suggest that the deceased has not met with an accident or not died due to injuries involved in the accident. As such, to support such a view reliance can also be placed on Darbara Singh and others versus The Taprian Amar Singh Cooperative Agriculture Services Society Limited and others 2013(4) CLT 192 (PB), wherein it has been held that the respondents have not rebutted or brought forth any evidence on record to prove that the deceased did not receive injuries in the accident or the death certificate produced is fabricated. It has been further held that merely non producing of the post-mortem report itself is not sufficient to throw away the case of the appellants.   In the circumstances of the case, we are of the considered opinion that the OPs are deficient in not settling the claim on the ground of non submission of the post-mortem report, more so when, there may be various other reasons for not getting conducted the post mortem on the dead body of the DLA. 

 

10.             In the light of above discussion, we allow the complaint and direct the OPs number 2 and 3 to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the present complaint i.e. 04.07.2016 till realisation.  OP number 2 and 3 are further directed to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.5,000/- in lieu of consolidated amount of compensation and litigation expenses.

 

11.             This order of ours be complied with within a period of thirty days of its communication. A  copy of this order be issued to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to records.

                Pronounced.

                November 1, 2016.

                                                        (Sukhpal Singh Gill)

                                                           President

 

 

                                               

                                                                (Sarita Garg)

                                                                    Member