Complainants Maninderjit Kaur and others through the present complaint filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short, ‘the Act’) has prayed that the necessary directions may kindly be issued to the opposite parties to pay the amount of policy no.470378626 for Rs.2,00,000/- alongwith accrued benefits as per rules together with compensation with interest @ 18% p.a. till payment from the date of death and Rs.10,000/- as litigation expenses, in the interest of justice.   

2.       The case of the complainant in brief is that Sh.Gurjinder Singh had hired the services of the opposite party no.1 by obtaining LIC Policies from opposite party for covering the risk of his life vide policy no.470378626 for Rs.2,00,000/- as per rules and thus he became the consumer of the opposite party and had been paying the requisite premium regularly. On 2.8.2014 unfortunately said Gurinder Singh expired and thus the complainants being his legal heirs and dependants stepped into his shoes  approached the office of the opposite party no.1 with request to release the benefits of said LIC policy in their favour and after leaving the share of opposite party no.2 who is mother of Gurinder Singh and entitled to succeed as per her share which comes to the extent of ¼ share only but the opposite party informed that opposite party no.2 is nominee in the policy as such refused to release the said benefits to the complainants. It was informed to the opposite party no.1 that the intention of opposite party no.2 are not good and she wants to misappropriate the entire funds and is not interested to hand over the complainants who are only legal heirs and entitled to receive the said benefits but the opposite party refused to entertain the complainants. Complainants also served a legal notice to the opposite party but the refusal on the part of the opposite party and its officials clearly amounts to deficiency in service. Hence this complaint.

3.          Notice of the complaint was served upon the opposite parties. Opposite party no.1 appeared through its counsel and filed its written reply taking the preliminary objections that the present complaint is not maintainable and Surjit Kaur is the Nominee of the deceased Gurinder Singh and the opposite party are under legal obligation to make the payments under policy and discharge their liability under the policy as per provision and Act thus complaint is not maintainable. On merits, it was submitted that the LIC is under legal obligation to make the entire payment under the policy to opposite party no.2 as she is Nominee of DLA and thus LIC is ready to discharge their liability under the policy.  The legality, validity and genuineness of the notice are not admitted. All other averments made in the complaint have been denied and lastly the complaint has been prayed to be dismissed with costs.

4.       Opposite party no.2 appeared through its counsel and filed its written reply taking the preliminary objections that the present complaint is not maintainable and the Ld.Forum has got no jurisdiction to entertain and try the present complaint. On merits, it was admitted that the complainants are the widow and children of the deceased Gurinder Singh. It was submitted that Gurinder Singh had died and opposite party was appointed as Nominee by the deceased regarding his Insurance Policy as such the complainants are not entitled for any amount of the claim of Insurance Policy. Actually, deceased Gurinder Singh had strained relations with the complainant before his death as such he changed the Nomination of his Insurance Policy from the name of Maninderjit Kaur complainant to the name of opposite party vide Form of Change of Nomination No.1897 dated 20.5.2014. The complainants also produce the order dated 18.7.2016 passed by this Hon’ble Forum before the Manager Administration of L.I.C. and information regarding claim of the Insurance Policy of deceased was given to the opposite party vide letter dated 25.7.2016 whereby for release of claim succession certificate of court of law is required by the Insurance company as such the present complaint is not maintainable. All other averments made in the complaint have been denied and lastly the complaint has been prayed to be dismissed with costs.

5.       Complainant has tendered into evidence compromise Ex.C1.

6.     From the pleadings and compromise on record, we find that complainants have entered into a compromise with opposite party no.2 vide compromise Ex.C1 whereby the complainants have agreed to accept only 2/3^rd share of policy benefits in equal share and further agreed to give 1/3^rd share of policy benefits to opposite party no.2. We are also of this view that the compromise between the parties is in the interest and benefit of parties and for the just and proper relations in future between them. We find that even opposite party no.1 L.I.C. has no objection if the complaint is decided as per the compromise Ex.C1 between the complainants and opposite party no.2.

7.       Hence in view of all above, we dispose of this complaint with directions to opposite party no.1 to release the benefits of policy in question as per the compromise Ex.C1 i.e. 2/3^rd share be given to the complainants in equal share and 1/3^rd share of policy be given to the opposite party no.2 within a period of 30 days from the receipt of copy of orders.

8.       Copy of the order be communicated to the parties free of charges. After compliance, file be consigned to record.

                                                                                                                                                                                           (Naveen Puri)

                                                                                           President   

Announced:                                                                               (Jagdeep Kaur)

October,25 2016                                                                                 Member

*MK*