DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, MANSA. Complaint No.73/03.06.2008 Decided on : 17.12.2008 1.Smt. Bhupinder Kaur w/o late Sh.Chuhar Singh, resident of village Kahlon, P.O.Kotli, Tehsil and District Mansa. 2.Tarsem Singh S/o Sh.Chuhar Singh resident of village Kahlon, P.O. Kotli, Tehsil and District Mansa. 3.Jagjiwan Singh S/o Sh.Chuhar Singh @ Sukhdev Singh resident of Village Kahlon, P.O.Kotli, Tehsil and District Mansa. ..... Complainants. VERSUS 1.The Kahlon CASS Limited, Kahlon through its Secretary/Competent Authority, Tehsil and District Mansa. 2.The IFFCO-TOKIO General Insurance Company Limited, through its Branch Manager, FPO-51, Second Floor, New Leela Bhawan, Patiala. 3.The Mansa Central Co-operative Bank Limited, Maan Bibrian through its Branch Manager, Tehsil and District Mansa. ..... Opposite Parties. Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. ..... Present: Sh.Desh Bandhu, Advocate counsel for the complainants. Sh.Harjit Singh, Advocate counsel for the OPs.No.1 & 3. Opposite Party No.2 exparte. Before: Sh.Pritam Singh Dhanoa, President. Sh.Sarat Chander, Member. Smt.Neena Rani Gupta, Member. ORDER:- The instant complaint has been filed by Smt.Bhupinder Kaur, widow, Tarsem Singh and Jagjiwan Singh sons of Chuhar Singh @ Contd........2 : 2 : Sukhdev Singh, all residents of village Kahlon, P.O. Kotli, Tehsil and District Mansa, under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short called the 'Act'), on the averments, which may, briefly be described, as under:- That deceased Chuhar Singh @ Sukhdev Singh S/o Sh.Hardial Singh, during his life time, opened an account with the Mansa Central Cooperative Bank Limited by depositing a sum of Rs.1305/- at its branch at village Maan Bibrian, Tehsil and District Mansa. The said account holder was insured under Personal Accident Policy, floated by the IFFCO-TOKIO General Insurance Company Limited, under KCC Holders Scheme. The above named account holder was murdered on 11.5.2007and on that score FIR was registered on even date, under Section 302/307/323/148/149 IPC at Police Station, Sadar, Mansa. The post mortem on the body of the deceased was also got performed by the police at Civil Hospital, Mansa. During his life time, Chuhar Singh @ Sukhdev Singh had nominated his widow Bhupinder Kaur, complainant No.1, as his nominee, to receive the insurance claim in the event of his death. Being widow and sons of the deceased, the complainants are entitled to invoke the jurisdiction of the District Consumer Forum, as they have become consumers, under the opposite parties, qua the policy in question, within the purview of the Act. However, neither the Branch Manager of OP No.3, nor its employees are entertaining the claim of the claimants, although, they have completed, all the formalities required for payment of insurance claim on account of death of policy holder. The complainants have also served, legal notice dated 11.3.2008 upon the opposite parties through their counsel, but they did not bother, to take any action even inspite of receipt of the notice. Hence the complaint. On being put to notice, the opposite parties No. 1 & 3 filed written version, resisting the complaint, by taking preliminary objections; that the complainants are not consumers and deceased Chuhar Singh had Contd.......3 : 3 : not paid, any amount on account of insurance policy; that complaint is not maintainable and is bad for non-joiner of necessary parties before the opposite parties. The OP No.1 i.e.The Kahlon CASS Limited, Kahlon has deposited, the amount of Rs.2613/-, collected from its members, with OP No.2; that complainants have no locus standi to file the present complaint, because Chuhar Singh has been murdered and his death has not been caused in accident, for which they may be entitled, to the claim of the insurance policy issued by OP No.2; that complaint is barred by limitation; that the complainants have concealed the material facts from the knowledge of the Forum and their complaint, being false and vexatious, is liable to be dismissed, with special costs, in the sum of Rs.2000/- On merits, relationship of the complainant with the deceased policy and account holder has been admitted, along with the fact that he was member of OP No.1 Society, but it is reiterated that complainants are not entitled, to claim any compensation from the answering opposite parties, because the death of the policy holder has taken place due to murder and it is not accidental death, for which insurance policy has been issued by OP No.2 Rest of the averments made in the complaint, have been denied, and a prayer has been made, for dismissal of the same, with costs. The opposite party No.2 has been proceeded against exparte, vide order dated 10.7.2008. On being called upon, by this Forum, to do so, the learned counsel for the complainant, tendered in evidence, copies of documents, Ext.C-1 to C-14, including affidavit of the complainant Sh.Bhupinder Kaur. On the other hand, the counsel, for the contesting opposite parties has tendered into evidence, copies of documents Ext.OP-1 to OP-5 and closed their evidence. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through, the oral and documentary evidence, adduced on record, by the parties, carefully, with their kind assistance. Contd........4 : 4 : At the out set, the learned counsel, for the complainant Sh.Desh Bandhu Sharma, Advocate, has submitted that, the opposite parties, have withheld the payment of amount due to the legal heirs of the deceased policy holder in an arbitrary manner, on the plea that insurance policy covers only Accidental Deaths. Learned counsel further argued that for the purpose of payment of maturity value of insurance policy, death due to murder is also included in accidental death. In support of his contentions, learned counsel has placed reliance upon 1995(II) CPJ Guj. 302 Shyam Pyari versus United India Insurance Co.Ltd., wherein the deceased had taken personal accident policy. After his murder claim was filed by his legal heirs, but it was repudiated, by the Insurance Company, on the plea, that murder is not covered under the accidental death. It was held by the Hon'ble Gujarat Commission, that Insurance Company is liable to pay the amount of insurance, to the legal heirs, as it cannot be said that the deceased, has designed or planned his death. Learned counsel has further argued, that in view of the ratio of judgment, delivered in this authority, the legal heirs of the deceased, are entitled, to the payment of the amount of insurance claim, as per terms and conditions of the policy, and also an amount of Rs.30,000/- for mental and physical harassment, suffered by them, alongwith costs, in the sum of Rs.5500/- and interest @ 18% per annum, from the date of death. On the other hand the learned counsel for the contesting opposite parties, Sh. H.S. Sadhuwala, Advocate, has contended that insurance cover has been issued, in the name of deceased policy holder, by OP No.3 but Ops No.1 and 3, have just collected the amount, from the deceased and other members of the Society and deposited the same with OP No.2, as such, no liability can be fastened upon them, so far as, payment of insurance claim, made by the legal heirs of the deceased is concerned. We find merit in the arguments advanced by the learned Contd........5 : 5 : counsel for the contesting opposite parties. As per case of the claimants themselves, deceased Chuhar Singh @ Sukhdev Singh was member of Kahlon CASS Limited and amount collected to cover accidental death of its members was deposited by the said Society, with the Mansa Central Cooperative Bank, who further deposited the same along with the said amount, with OP No.2 i.e. IFFCO-TOKIO General Insurance Company Limited, who issued the insurance policy. Therefore, the claim is to be honoured by OP No.2, on account of death of deceased policy holder and not by Ops No.1 & 3, who appears to have been impleaded as parties, to facilitate just and proper decision of the case, being proper parties. The OP No.2 has not come forward, to defend the complaint. The contesting opposite parties, have admitted that premium, was deposited by the deceased policy holder and OP No.2 has issued insurance cover note, Ext.C-3. The complainants have also produced on record list of members of OP No.1 i.e. Cooperative Society of the deceased. In the said list, name of Chuhar Singh figures at Serial No.25. The perusal of copy of insurance cover note, Ext.C-3, reveals that OP No.2 has agreed to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- to each policy holder and amount of Rs.2613/- has been deposited by OP No.1 i.e. The Cooperative Society on account of premium. It is specifically mentioned in the copy of the cover note Ext.C-3, that insurance policy has been issued to cover the risk of accidental deaths and it was valid from 27.11.2006 to 26.11.2007. As per copy of FIR, Ext.C-5, registered on 12.5.2007, at Police Station Sadar, Mansa, deceased policy holder, has been murdered on 11.5.2007. As such, his death has taken place within the period, covered by the policy. The complainants have also tendered in evidence copy of the Post Mortem Report, Ext. C-6, and receipt secured by the police after post mortem examination, Ext.C-7, at the time of delivery of the body of the deceased for funeral. They have also produced copy of death certificate, Ext.C-8, wherein date of death of the deceased policy holder, has been mentioned as Contd........6 : 6 : 11.5.2007. The complaint has been filed on 3.6.2008, as such, it is well within period of limitation. They have further produced copies of pass book of the deceased, Ext.C-9. As stated in the earlier part of the order, complainant No.1, has furnished her affidavit, Ext.C-1, reiterating all the allegations made in the complaint on solemn affirmation. The contents of her affidavit have gone uncontroverted, as such, OP No.2 has not come forward, to contest the complaint. In view of the ratio of judgment, delivered in the authority cited above, and relied upon by the learned counsel for the complainants, we have come to the conclusion that OP No.2, was not right, in ignoring the claim of the complainants, for payment of amount of insurance claim, payable, to legal heirs of the deceased policy holder, who, as per the facts admitted by the contesting opposite parties, and evidence adduced on record by the complainant, was husband of complainant No.1 and father of the remaining complainants. The complainants have also placed on record copy of notice dated 11.3.2008, Ext.C-10, served upon the opposite parties. They have also tendered in evidence the postal receipts, Ext.C-11 to C-13 showing delivery of postal cover containing the said notice, in the Post Office on even date. They have further produced on record, the acknowledgment Ext.C-14 issued by the office of OP No.2, after receipt of the postal cover from the complainant. The conduct of OP No.2 of not coming forward to contest, the complaint, substantiates the plea of the complainants that its officials have refused, to entertained the claim on being approached by them. Therefore, certainly there is deficiency in service on the part of OP No.2, within the purview of the Act. For the aforesaid reasons, we have no option, but to hold that complaint against OP No.2 is bound, to succeed. Resultantly, we allow the complaint, against Opposite Party No.2 i.e. IFFCO-TOKIO General Insurance Company Limited, and direct it, to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/-, to the complainants, as per terms and conditions of the insurance cover, on Contd........7 : 7 : account of death of, deceased Chuhar Singh @ Sukhdev Singh. We further direct OP No.2, to pay a sum of Rs.2,000/-, on account of compensation, and another sum of Rs.1000/-, on account of costs, to the complainants. The payment shall be made by OP No.2, within a period of one month from the date of receipt, of the copy of this order, failing which the complainants, shall be entitled, to payment of interest @ 9% per annum, from the date of receipt of order, till payment. The complaint against OPs No.1 & 3 fails, and hereby stands dismissed. The copies of the order be supplied to the parties free of charges under the rules, on the subject, and file be indexed and consigned to record. Pronounced: 17.12.2008 Neena Rani Gupta, Sarat Chander, P.S.Dhanoa, Member. Member. President.
