Punjab

Sangrur

CC/518/2016

Pargat Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Dirba Multipurpose C.S.Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Shri G.S.Nandpuri

12 Jan 2017

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR.

                                                              

                                                Complaint No.  518

                                                Instituted on:    30.08.2016

                                                Decided on:       12.01.2017

 

Pargat Singh son of Late Shri Labh Singh son of Jarnail Singh, resident of Ward No.8, Bhogi Patti, Dirba, Tehsil Sunam, District Sangrur.

                                                        …Complainant

                                Versus

1.             The Dirba Multipurpose C.S. Ltd. Dirba through its Secretary, Tehsil Dirba, Distt Sangrur.

2.             The Sangrur Central Co-operative Bank Ltd. Branch Dirba, through its Manager, Teh Dirba, Distt. Sangrur.

3.             The Sangrur Central Co-operative Bank Ltd. Head Office Sangrur, through its Manager.

4.             The New India Assurance Company Ltd. Ranbir College Road, Sangrur through its Manager.

5.             The New India Assurance Company Ltd. New India Assurance Building 87, Mahatma Gandhi Road, Fort, Mumbai 400001 through its General Manager.

                                                        ..Opposite parties

 

For the complainant  :       Shri G.S.Nandpuri, Adv.

For OP No.1             :       Shri A.S.Dullat, Adv.

For OP No.2&3         :       Shri Tarun Goyal, Adv.

For OP NO.4&5                :       Shri Ashish Garg, Adv.

 

Quorum:   Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

                Sarita Garg, Member

                Vinod Kumar Gulati, Member

 

Order by : Sukhpal Singh Gill, President.

 

1.             Shri Pargat 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 Shri Labh Singh (referred to as DLA in short) was the member of the OP number 1 under account number 18/3/00/03000045 with their office and issued the Sehkari Kissan Credit card being the member of the society.  It is further averred that an amount of Rs.5/- was paid to OP number 4 and 5 from the account of the DLA for the group insurance scheme being the member of OP number 1 and the complainant is the nominee under the policy.  It is further averred that the DLA was insured under the policy for Rs.50,000/- in case of accidental death.

 

2.             Further case of the complainant is that the DLA i.e. father of the complainant Shri Labh Singh met with a road side accident on 27.2.2016 and he received multiple injuries,  as such, he was admitted in the hospitals and took treatment and ultimately died on 22.4.2016 due to the said accident and FIR number 24 dated 16.3.2016 under section 279/337 IPC was also registered against the accused Amritpal Singh son of Bagga Singh, resident of Ward No.10, Ghagha, Distt. Patiala i.e. the driver of car number DL-3DF-1092.  Thereafter the complainant submitted the claim with the OP number 2 along with the required documents and sent to the OP number 3, but the grievance of the complainant is that the death claim of the complainant was repudiated vide letter dated 18.7.2016, which is said to be clear cut deficiency in service on the part of the OPs.   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 an amount of Rs.50,000/- along with interest and further claimed compensation and litigation expenses.

 

3.             No written reply has been filed by the OP number 1, as such right to file the written reply was closed by the order of this Forum vide order dated 8.11.2016.

 

4.             In reply filed by the OPs number 2 and 3, it is admitted that the DLA was a member of the Group Insurance Scheme. The other allegations levelled in the complaint have been denied. It is stated that the complainant is not entitled for any relief from OPs number 2 and 3. Apart from that, legal objections are taken up on the grounds that the complaint is not maintainable, that the complainant has no locus standi to file the present complaint and that the complainant has no cause of action to file the present complaint.

 

5.             In reply filed by Ops number 4 and 5, legal objections are taken up on the grounds that the complainant has no cause of action to file the present complaint, that complicated questions of law and facts are involved in the present case. On merits, it is admitted that on the request of OP umber 2, the OP number 5 issued the policy in question for the period from 29.9.2015 to 28.9.2016 under which an amount of Rs.50,000/- was payable in case of accidental death.  It is further stated that after receipt of the intimation dated 24.6.2016 regarding accidental death of the DLA, the OPs wrote letter dated 29.6.2016 to OP number 3 for submitting the post-mortem report and premium deductions and receipts etc, but the same were not submitted, as such, the claim of the complainant was repudiated vide letter dated 18.7.2016. It is further stated that the complainant lodged the FIR on 16.3.2016 even after 20 days of the alleged accident. It is stated that the FIR was got registered only to get the false claim as the DLA died a natural death.

 

6.             The learned counsel for the complainant has produced Ex.C-1 affidavit, Ex.C-2 copy of OPD slip, Ex.C-3 copy of repudiation letter, Ex.C-4 copy of letter dated 19.7.2016, Ex.C-5 copy of passbook, Ex.C-6 copy of FIR, Ex.C-7 copy of death certificate and closed evidence. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the OP number 1 has produced Ex.OP1/1 affidavit, Ex.OP1/2 copy of resolution and closed evidence. The learned counsel for the OP number 2 and 3 has produced Ex.OP2&3/1 affidavit and closed evidence. The learned counsel for OP number 4&5 has produced Ex.OP4&5/1 copy of insurance policy, Ex.OP4&5/2 copy of terms and conditions, Ex.OP4&5/3 to Ex.OP4&5/6 copies of letters and Ex.OP4&5/7 affidavit and closed evidence.

7.             We have carefully perused the complaint, written version of the opposite parties, evidence of the parties and heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties. In our opinion, the complaint merits dismissal, for these reasons.

 

8.             It is an admitted fact that the DLA being the member of the OP number 1 was insured with the OPs number 4 and 5 for Rs.50,000/- in case of accidental death under the policy in question. It is also an admitted fact that the complainant lodged the claim with the OPs, but the same was repudiated by the OPs on the ground that the complainant failed to submit the post mortem report of the DLA Labh Singh.  Now, the question which arises for determination before us is whether the complainant is entitled to get any claim from the Ops or not.

 

9.             The complainant has averred in the complaint that the DLA was admitted in the hospitals and took treatment and ultimately he died on 22.4.2016 due to the above said accident.  Further the complainant has mentioned in the FIR, Ex.C-6 that the DLA was taken to Amar Hospital, Patiala and further he was taken to DMC Hospital Ludhiana on 2.3.2016 where he remained up till 13.3.2016.  But, we may mention that the complainant has not produced even a single document on record to show that the DLA was ever taken to Amar Hospital, Patiala and DMC Hospital Ludhiana as mentioned in the document Ex.C-6.  There is no explanation from the side of the complainant that why he did not produce these documents which were very necessary for the just decision of the case, more so when he has mentioned this fact in the FIR, Ex.C-6.   Further the complainant has not produced on record any copy of post-mortem report, nor it is mentioned that no post-mortem was conducted on the body of the DLA.  The complainant has produced on record the copy of OPD slip dated 22.4.2016 Ex.C-2 wherein it is mentioned that the DLA was admitted in the hospital after the road side accident with Regn. No.13926/875, but we may mention again that there is nothing mentioned about this fact in the complaint or in the affidavit of the complainant that the DLA was ever taken to Baba Bersiana Sahib Charitable Hospital, Dirba.  As such, we are unable to go with the contention of the learned counsel for the complainant that the DLA died an accidental death, as the complainant has failed to produce any cogent, reliable and trustworthy evidence to establish the accidental death of the DLA.  Further the complainant has not produced any documentary evidence on record to show what action was taken by the complainant against Amritpal Singh son of Bagga Singh, with whom the DLA had met with an accident.  In these circumstances, we are of the considered opinion that the complainant has failed to prove on record that the DLA died an accidental death,  as such we feel that the OPs are not at all deficient in repudiating the claim of the complainant.    

 

10.           In view of our above discussion, we find no case made out and as such we dismiss the complaint of the complainant. However, the parties are left to bear their own costs. A copy of this order be issued to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to records.

                Pronounced.

                January 12, 2017.

                                                        (Sukhpal Singh Gill)

                                                           President

 

 

                                                       

                                                                (Sarita Garg)

                                                                    Member

 

 

                                                        (Vinod Kumar Gulati)

                                                                    Member