Gurdeep complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 requiring the opposite parties to pay the insurance amount of Rs.1,00,000/- to the complainant alongwith interest from the date of death of S. Mewa Singh husband of the complainant and to pay Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation for causing mental tension, harassment and inconvenience and also to pay costs of the complaint. <br /> 2. The complainant averred in her complaint that the opposite party No. 1 and 3 in collaboration with the party No. 2 floated an insurance scheme known as Insurance Linked Deposit Scheme and various risks were to be covered under this scheme. According to the terms and conditions of the scheme the existing account holders of the Central Cooperative Bank can opt for adoption of the scheme by depositing minimum balance of Rs.1000/- in their respective Saving Accounts while the same depositors shall be directly covered under the scheme by opening Saving Bank accounts. S. Mewa Singh husband of the complainant opened special saving account with the opposite party No. 1 under the above scheme so he is entitled for the benefits of the scheme. Gurmit Singh who has his own canter No. PB-04-H-9850 alongwith Gurmit Singh, Gurmail Singh, Mewa Singh husband of the complainant, Gola started from village Dod for Amritsar and on 1-15 PM and their canter struck with the Tata Sumo No. HR-01-8350 which came from front at very high speed, rashly and negligently whereby the canter turned turtle and fell in the pits and Mewa Singh died . The FIR No. 14 dated 25/1/2006 was registered in Police Station, Sarhali. The post mortem of the deceased was done on the next day. The complainant approached the opposite party No. 1 and 3 with the request to give the claim of Rs.1,00,000/- as per terms of the scheme. The opposite party No. 3 refused to pay the claim vide letter dated 15/9/2006. So it is clear cut deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties. The complainant suffer a lot of inconvenience and harassment due to deficiency of service so he is entitled for compensation to the tune of Rs.1,00,000/-. Hence the present complaint. <br /> 3. The counsel for complainant was heard with regard to admission of the complaint and vide order dated 9-10-2006 complaint was admitted and notice was ordered to be issued to the opposite parties. <br /> 4. On receipt of notice the opposite party No. 1 and 3 appeared through Sh. G.S.Sandhu Advocate and filed written reply taking preliminary objections that the complaint as framed is not maintainable. The complainant has no locus standi to file the present complaint. There is no deficiency of service on the part of the of the opposite parties. The opposite party No. 1 and 3 have been wrongly and falsely dragged into this litigation. So the complaint be dismissed. On merits the opposite party No. 1 and 3 submitted that as per terms and conditions of the said scheme the answering opposite parties sent the required installment of Rs.40/- to the opposite party No. 2 insurance company as the amount already paid by the complainant as per said insurance policy. So the whole responsibility lies upon the opposite party No. 2. So there is no deficiency on the part of the opposite party No. 1 and 3. The opposite parties already done their duties. The opposite party No. 1 and 3 cannot be held liable for the same. The complainant is not entitled to any relief against the the answering opposite parties. Hence the complaint be dismissed against the answering opposite parties with costs. <br /> 5. The opposite party No. 2 appeared through Sh. Y.P.Bansal Advocate and filed written statement taking preliminary objections that there is no deficiency of services on the part of the opposite party No. 2. It is admitted that one Chanan Singh while sitting on wheat bags loaded in a canter died in a road accident. He was traveling in the vehicle in contravention of the law of the land. Since he was unauthorised passenger of the canter and reckless conduct is not covered under the policy issued to the Cooperative bank so the complaint is not maintainable. The opposite party No. 2 has no privity and contract with complainant. No consideration of premium has been received by the opposite party from the complainant. So the complaint is liable to be dismissed. On merits the opposite party No. 2 submitted that risk of reckless conduct is not covered under the policy. The deceased is not entitled for the benefit under the scheme because at the time of alleged accident he was traveling unauthorizedly in a canter. It is admitted that vide letter dated 15/9/2006 the opposite party No. 2 refused to make payment of the claim. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party No. 2. So the complaint be dismissed with costs. <br /> 6. All the parties wanted to lead evidence to prove their respective pleadings and proper opportunity was given to them. The complainant tendered in evidence affidavit of complainant Ex.C-1, post mortem report Ex.C-2, copy of FIR Ex.C-3, copy of repudiation Ex.C-4, copy of death certificate Ex.C-5, statement of account of account of No. 1824 in the name of Mewa Singh Ex.C-6, pass book Ex.C-7, ration card Ex.C-8, copy of pass book Ex.C-9, affidavit of Gurmail Singh Ex.C-10, copy of insurance policy Ex.C-11 and closed her evidence. <br /> 7. In order to rebut the evidence of the complainant the opposite party No. 1 and 3 tendered in evidence affidavit of Buta Singh Branch Manager of Cooperative Bank Branch Office Baja Khana Ex.R-1, copy of statement of account of Mewa Singh Ex.R-2, copy of draft Ex.R-3, copy of transfer voucher Ex.R-4, copy of advice Ex.R-5, copy of list of members Ex.R-6, copy of receipt and letter Ex.R-7, affidavit of Rajinder Singh Brar Accountant Ex.R-8 and closed their evidence. <br /> 8. The opposite party No. 2 tendered in evidence affidavit of Sat Parkash Ex.RA, copy of survey report of Satish Kumar Bansal Ex.RB, statements Ex.RC and Ex.RD, copy of insurance policy Ex.RE and their evidence closed by order of the Forum on 20/7/2007.<br /> 8. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have very carefully gone through the affidavits and documents on the file. Our observations and findings are as under.<br /> 9. Learned counsel for the complainant submitted that the complainant being nominee of Mewa Singh insured is entitled to recover insurance amount of Rs.1,00,000/- from the opposite parties alongwith compensation and damages thereof. <br /> 10. Learned counsel for the opposite party No. 1 and 3 submitted that they had been collecting premium from account holders of Cooperative Bank for depositing with opposite party No. 3 for insuring life of the depositors under Insurance Linked Deposit Scheme of account holders. So they are not at any fault with regard to payment of the insurance scheme. <br /> 11. Learned counsel for the opposite party No. 2 have submitted that the deceased was traveling in the vehicle meant for goods carriage in contravention with the motor vehicle Act. He was unauthorised passenger sitting on the wheat bags loaded in canter. So the complainant cannot take benefit of his own wrong of the deceased Mewa Singh. Such like death is not covered under the insurance scheme. Complainant is not legal representative or heir of the Mewa Singh. <br /> 12. Learned counsel for the complainant has submitted that death of Mewa Singh was accidental in nature which is covered under the insurance policy floated by the opposite party No. 2. Complainant is only legal heir and legal representative of Mewa Singh. <br /> 13. There is no denial by the opposite parties with regard to death of Mewa Singh. As per ration card copy Ex.C-8 Mewa Singh is having Gurdeep Kaur his wife as a member of family of Mewa Singh. So she is held to be the legal heir and legal representative of the Mewa Singh as no other person has come forward to stake claim in the insurance amount. <br /> 14. As per post mortem report Ex.C-2 Mewa Singh son of Ranjit Singh died on 26/1/2006 in road side accident. <br /> 15. As per the copy of FIR Ex.C-3, the FIR was registered in police station Sarhali District Tarntarn on 25/1/2006 at Serial No. 14 on the statement of Gurmit Singh son of Mukhtiar Singh. In brief Gurmit Singh stated that he was driving his canter PB-04-H-9850 loaded with wheat carrying in it alongwith Gurmit Singh, Gurmail Singh, Mewa Singh and Gola. At about 1-15 P.M. near Petrol Pump situated in village Sarhali a Tata Sumo HR-01-E-8340 coming from the side of Amritsar driven in rash and negligent manner struck against the canter. The canter turned upside down in the road side ditches. Mewa Singh son of Ranjit Singh resident of Baja Khana died at the spot due to the injuries. From these facts it can be said that Mewa Singh was not negligent for his death. So it is held that Mewa Singh died in road side accident. <br /> 16. Such like death in an accident as per insurance policy Ex.C-11 is covered in Group Personal Accident Insurance Policy issued by the opposite party No. 2 on 8/6/2005. As per statement of account No. 1824 operated in The Faridkot Central Cooperative Bank Ltd. Faridkot Ex.C-7 Mewa Singh was account holder of the bank who had been making payment of insurance premium to the opposite party No. 1 and 3 as per list Ex.R-6 where name of Mewa Singh appears at Serial No. 185. This account was opened on 16/3/1998. The Central Cooperative Bank vide letter dated 31/5/2005 Ex.R-7 have sent premium of Rs.309172-50 paise to the insurance company in respect of premium of Sehkari Bank Bima Yogna of 9513 Members at the rate of Rs.32.50 paise which was received by the opposite party No. 2 on 31/5/2005. The opposite parties have deducted Rs.40/- on 30/5/2005 from the above noted account of the Mewa Singh against premium of the insurer. Even otherwise opposite party No. 2 has repudiated the claim of the complainant only on the ground that Mewa Singh was traveling on a goods carrying vehicle who has not a seating space for a passenger as per letter dated 15/9/2006 Ex.C-4. In such like circumstances it is held that a person i.e. insured cannot die to get paid insurance amount to the complainant. Death of Mewa Singh is accidental who is covered under the insurance policy of opposite party No. 2.<br /> 17. In view of the above noted facts and circumstances the complaint of the complainant is accepted. Accordingly the opposite party No. 2 is directed to make payment of the insurance amount of Rs.1,00,000/- alongwith compensation of Rs.10,000/- and litigation expenses of Rs.500/- total Rs.1,10,500/- to the complainant within one month from the date of the receipt of the copy of this order, failing which the opposite party No. 2 shall pay interest at the rate of 12% per annum on the amount of Rs.1,10,500/- from the date of the decision of the complaint till the realization of the amount. However the payment of the amount to the complainant should be made against execution of surety bonds to the tune of Rs. 1,50,000/- by giving an undertaking to make payment of above noted amount to other legal heirs and legal representatives of Mewa Singh if ever they come forward or claim share from the amount in question. Copies of the order be sent to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room. <br /> Announced in open Forum:<br /> Dated: 20/8/2007