Gurjit Kaur and others complainants have 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 complainants alongwith interest from the date of death of Naginder Singh till realization and to pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation for causing mental tension, harassment and inconvenience and also to pay Rs.10,000/- on account of litigation expenses. <br /> 2. The complainants averred in their complaint that the Naginder Singh son of Kirpal Singh was holder of insurance policy No. 111600/47/01/00057 as he had adopted Sehkari Bank Bima Yogna with the opposite party No.1. The complainants No. 1 to 3 are the legal and natural heirs of the deceased Naginder Singh. The mutation of inheritance of Naginder Singh has also been sanctioned in the name of the complainants. Naginder Singh had died in an accident near village Panj Grain Kalan on 24/10/2001 and the FIR lodged under Section 304-A/279/337/338/427 IPC No. 89 dated 25/10/2001 registered in the police station Saddar Kotkapura. The post mortem of the Naginder Singh was conducted by the doctors of G.G.S. Medical College and Hospital, Faridkot. The deceased was having a saving account No. 121 with the opposite party No. 1. He has also adopted Sehkari Bank Bima Yogna. The opposite party No. 1 assured Naginder Singh to the tune of Rs.1,00,000/- with the opposite party No. 3 with the approval of the opposite party No. 2. After the death of Naginder Singh the complainants gave an application to the opposite party No. 1 for the release of the insurance amount but the opposite party No. 1 sent the case to the opposite party No. 2 who further sent it to opposite party No. 3 for payment. The complainants approached the opposite party No. 1 to 3 many times but they failed to make payment under one pretext or the other. Thereafter the opposite party No. 3 issued a letter No. DPA/BMG/06/797/05 dated 11/5/2005 to the opposite party No. 1 whereby the claim of the complainants was rejected without assigning any reason. The opposite party No. 1 sent a letter No. 197 dated 11/6/2005 to the complainants to this effect. The complainants being the consumers of the opposite parties legally entitled to the insurance amount alongwith interest at the rate of 1-1/2% P.M. as per market rate till its realization. The complainants requested the opposite parties so many times to admit their claim and spent about Rs.5000/- as traveling expenses for went to Chandigarh but without any result. It is clear cut deficiency on the part of the opposite parties. The complainants are being harassed without any reason and they have wasted their precious time, money and energy in approaching the opposite parties for which they are entitled to Rs.50,000/- on account of unauthorised harassment and Rs.10,000/- as litigation expenses. Hence the present complaint. <br /> 3. The counsel for complainant was heard with regard to admission of the complaint and vide order dated 12-9-2006 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 2 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 2 have been wrongly and falsely dragged into this litigation. So the complaint be dismissed. On merits the opposite party No. 1 and 2 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. 3 insurance company as the amount already paid by the complainants as per said insurance policy. So the whole responsibility lies upon the opposite party No. 3. So there is no deficiency on the part of the opposite party No. 1 and 2. The opposite parties already done their duties. The opposite party No. 1 and 2 cannot be held liable for the same. The complainants are 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. 3 appeared through Sh. A.K.Monga Advocate and filed written statement taking preliminary objections that there is no deficiency of services on the part of the opposite party No. 3. The complex questions of law and facts which require thorough investigation and recording of evidence at length involved in the present complaint so the matter be referred to the Civil Court. The complainants by their own act and conduct stopped from filing the present complaint and they have failed to comply with the requirements necessary for payment of the claim in question despite of the repeated requests and reminders issued by the opposite party no. 3. The complaint is vague and discloses no cause of action. The complainants are not the consumer of the opposite party no. 3. On merits the opposite party No. 3 submitted that the alleged deceased is not the consumer of the opposite party No. 3 as the policy was purchased by the opposite party No.1. No intimation as required was given to the answering opposite party. No documents as required for passing the claim was submitted. Even the opposite party No. 1 and 2 who purchase the policy failed to comply with the required formalities despite of the repeated requests made by the opposite party No. 3. The complainants are not entitled to any relief. The complainants never approached the opposite party No. 3. It is correct that letter dated 11/5/2005 was issued but a valid reason was conveyed to the complainants vide this letter for closing the file as no claim. The claim of the complainants has been rightly rejected after due application of mind and on merits and after through investigation. The opposite party No. 1 failed to give a correct list of the persons insured by the opposite party No. 3. The list submitted by the opposite party No. 1 and 2 was of 315 account holders but the premium in respect of 303 account holders was remitted to the opposite party No. 3 and this fact was brought to the knowledge of the Branch Manager of the opposite party No. 1 and the required information was never supplied to the answering opposite party for straitening the record regarding the number of the persons insured against valid premium. The complainants are not entitled to any compensation. The opposite party No. 3 being trustee of the public fund are supposed to pay the claim after due compliance of the required formalities which the complainants have failed to comply. Hence the complaint be dismissed with costs. <br /> 6. Both the parties wanted to lead evidence to prove their respective pleadings and proper opportunity was given to them. The complainants tendered in evidence affidavit of Navdeep Singh complainant No. 2 Ex.C-1, death certificate Ex.C-2, attested copy of FIR Ex.C-3, attested copy of post mortem report of Naginder Singh Ex.C-4, copy of account opening form Ex.C-5, copy of adoption of Sehkari Bank Bima Yogna Ex.C-6, copy of statement of account Ex.C-7, letter dated 11/6/2005 Ex.C-8, copy of no claim letter Ex.C-9, copy of insurance policy Ex.C-10, copy of pass book Ex.C-11, copy of letter for demanding claim from the bank Ex.C-12, copy of claim form Ex.C-13, affidavit of Gurjit Kaur Ex.C-14, affidavit of Jagdeep Singh Ex.C-15 and closed their evidence. <br /> 7. In order to rebut the evidence of the complainants the opposite party No. 1 and 2 tendered in evidence affidavit of Gurdarshan Singh manager Ex.R-1 list of members dated 31/5/2001 Ex.R-5, certified copy of the advise dated 31/5/2001 Ex.R-6, affidavit of Rajinder Singh Brar Accountant The Faridkot Central Cooperative Bank, Faridkot Ex.R-7 and closed their evidence. The opposite party No. 3 tendered in evidence affidavit of M.R.Dhingra Divisional Manager Ex.R-2, copy of letter dated 11/5/2005 Ex.R-3, copy of policy Ex.R-4 and closed their evidence. <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 complainants are entitled to recover Rs.1,00,000/- as insurance amount on account of death of Naginder Singh having insurance policy with the opposite parties. Complainants are also entitled for compensation to the tune of Rs.50,000/- alongwith litigation expenses of Rs.10,000/-.<br /> 10. Learned counsel for the opposite party No. 3 has submitted that the insurance amount of 33 cases have not been received by the insurance company from the opposite party No. 1 and 2. They have received only insurance amount from 315 account holders of the opposite party No. 1 and 2 from which the complainants are not covered for insurance. Complainants are not entitled to recover amount from the opposite party No. 3. The opposite party No. 1 and 2 being negligent in their act and conduct are liable to pay the insurance amount to the complainant if ever it is payable. <br /> 11. Learned counsel for the opposite party No. 1 and 2 submitted that they have sent premium amount out of the account of the Naginder Singh immediately to the opposite party No. 3 in a consolidated list which finds name of the deceased Naginder Singh so the opposite party No. 3 is liable to pay the insurance amount. <br /> 12. Learned counsel for the opposite party No. 3 have submitted that Naginder Singh died due to his own negligence so complainants are not entitled to recover the insurance amount from the opposite party No. 3. Even the complainants are not legal representatives or heirs of the deceased Naginder Singh. <br /> 13. Learned counsel for the complainant has submitted that Gurjit Kaur is widow, Navdeep Singh is son and Jagdeep Singh is son of Late Naginder Singh son of Kirpal Singh. <br /> 14. From the perusal of the account opening form Ex.C-5 it is made out that on 20/8/1980 account of Naginder Singh son of Kirpal Singh was opened by depositing a sum of Rs.5000/- in Faridkot Central Cooperative Bank Ltd. Baja Khana. Naginder Singh has also given option vide letter Ex.C-6 to adopt Sehkari Bank Bima Yogna on 17/7/1999. <br /> 15. Pass Book of Naginder Singh Ex.C-11, copy of insurance cover note Ex.C-10, letter Ex.C-9 has been written by United India Insurance Company Ltd. to The Punjab State Cooperative Bank Ltd. Chandigarh on 11/5/2005 by way of which the claim of the complainants was rejected. <br /> 16. The Cooperative Bank vide letter dated 31/5/2001 has sent sum of Rs. 1,33,696.50 paise as premium of Sehkari Bank Bima Yogna to the insurance company for 3745 members at the rate of Rs.35.70 paise from 1/6/2001 to 31/5/2002. The list attached Ex.R-5 shows name of Naginder Singh at Serial No. 17 having account No. 121. This account number also stands mentioned in account opening form Ex.C-5. So the life of Naginder Singh stood insured as per rules and regulations of the opposite parties. Premium also stands paid in respect of insurance of Naginder Singh. <br /> 17. As per the death certificate Ex.C-2 of Naginder Singh son of Kirpal Singh expired on 24/10/2001. The FIR Ex.C-3 was recorded in police station, Saddar Kotkapura at Serial No. 89 on 24/10/2001 on the statement of Master Harpal Singh son of Wariam Singh. As per statement of Master Harpal Singh the Canter No. HR-20-A-0500 carrying Kabddi and Handball players from Kotkapura to Chamkour Sahib met with an accident. It struck against Tempo Travel No. PB-29-9936. Naginder Singh son of Kirpal Singh occupying Tempo Travel alongwith three other persons expired. The Tempo Travel was being driving in rash and negligent manner which struck against the Canter occupied by Harpal Singh. In such like circumstances Naginder Singh who was not driving the Tempo Travel cannot be said to be negligent in any manner for causing his death. It may be the act of rash and negligent driving by the drivers and not by occupants as per post mortem report Ex.C-4 Naginder Singh scumbled to the injuries received by him in road side accident. So death of Naginder Singh cannot be activated to Naginder Singh for his negligence in any manner. <br /> 18. The complainants have submitted in their affidavit Ex.C-1 that they are the legal heirs and representatives of Naginder Singh. There is no rebuttal to these facts by the opposite parties. It is not on the file if any other person also is legal heir or legal representative of Naginder Singh. <br /> 19. From the above noted facts and circumstances it is made out that the opposite party No. 3 have illegally repudiated the insurance claim of the complainants. So there is deficiency of services on the part of the opposite party No. 3 to be provided by them to the complainants. So the complaint filed by the complainants is accepted. Accordingly the opposite party No. 3 is directed to pay Rs.1,00,000/- as insurance claim,Rs.10,000/- as compensation and Rs.500/- as costs of the complaint in total Rs.1,10,500/- to the complainants within one month from the date of the receipt of the copy of this order, failing which the opposite party No. 3 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. 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: 14/8/2007<br /> <br />