Haryana

Kaithal

CC/202/2022

Omidevi etc - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Managing Director etc. - Opp.Party(s)

Sh. Charanjeet Singh Ahluwalia

24 May 2024

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KAITHAL

 

                                                               Complaint Case No. 202 of 2022.

                                                               Date of institution:   18.08.2022.

                                                               Date of decision:      24.05.2024.

 

1. Omidevi widow of Shri Rajbir Singh,
2. Amit s/o Shri Rajbir Singh,
3. Nirmala Devi daughter of Shri Rajbir Singh,

All residents of Serhada, Tehsil and District Kaithal.

 

                                                                                      …Complainants.

                                                     Versus

 

1. The Managing Director, Kogta Financial (India) Ltd., S-1, Gopalbari, near Ajmer Pullia, Opposite Metro Pillar No.143, Jaipur-302001 (Rajasthan).
2. The Manager, Kogta Financial (India) Ltd., 1^st Floor, SC 78,79, Sector-16, Namastey Chowk, Karnal.
3. The Manager, Kogta Financial (India) Ltd., 2^nd Floor, Vaishno Colony, near Hanuman Vatika, Kaithal, Pundri Road, Kaithal.
4. The Managing Director, ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Ltd., Interface Building No.16, 601/602, 6^th Floor, New Link Road, Malad (West), Mumbai-400064.

...Opposite Parties.

 

          Complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act

 

 

CORAM:   SMT. NEELAM KASHYAP, PRESIDENT.

                   SMT. SUMAN RANA, MEMBER.

                   SHRI SUNIL MOHAN TRIKHA, MEMBER.

                  

Present:       Shri C.S. Ahluwalia, Advocate for the complainants.   

                   Shri Vikram Tiwari, Advocate for Opposite Parties No.1 to 3.

                   Shri Amit Kaushik, Advocate for Opposite Party No.4.

                  

ORDER  -  NEELAM KASHYAP, PRESIDENT:

          Complainants have filed this complaint under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019, against the OPs.

2.                In the complaint, complainants alleged that one Rajbir Singh s/o Shri Bachna availed a loan of Rs.686650/- for purchasing a tractor from OP No.2 through loan account No.0000196352. That OP No.2 released/online disbursed the amount of Rs.672984/- to the dealer from who said Rajbir Singh purchased a tractor and disbursed an amount of Rs.5100/- to OP No.4 for purchasing the policy on the name of “Loan Suraksha” for this loan amount. That OP No.2 assured that in case the policy holder i.e. said Rajbir Singh died, then this loan amount regarding tractor be recovered from OP No.4 from whom the policy was purchased. That on 08.05.2022, unfortunately, said Rajbir Singh while plugging his agriculture land with this new tractor suffered heart attack and died an accidental death at village Serhada. That on 17.06.2022, the matter was reported to OP No.2, who assured that now onward the OPs need not to pay any further installments regarding this tractor and the same is to be paid by OP No.4, from whom “Loan Suraksha” amount of tractor was secured. That despite assurance, recovery agent of OP No.2 visited the residence of complainants and demanded the installments regarding tractor from them. That OPs No.1 & 3 neither handover the policy of said Rajbir Singh to the LRs of said Rajbir Singh. The above act and conduct of OPs, amounts to gross deficiency in service, on their part, due to which, they suffered huge physical harassment, mental agony as well as financial loss, constraining them, to file the present complaint, against the OPs, before this Commission.

3.                Upon notice of complaint, OPs appeared and filed their respective written statements.

4.                OPs No.1 to 3, in their written statement stated that Rs.672984/- has been released to deceased on 28.02.2022, Rs.5100/- has been deducted against insurance policy, Rs.6871/- against processing fee and Rs.145/- against stamp duty deducted with the consent of deceased. That any deduction towards insurance product is done from loan amount to avoid burdening the borrower at the time of loan itself. That the company facilitates two types of loan insurance products that one is loan protector and the second covers accidental death. In the present case, the deceased has on his own accord opted for and availed the policy from OP No.4, which covers only accidental death. That as per version of the complainant, the death of said Rajbir Singh is natural death nor accident death, as he suffered from heart attack.

5.                OP No.4, in its written statement specifically stated that the present complaint is premature, as no claim was filed/lodged with OP No.4 with regard to death of Rajbir Singh against Loan Suraksha policy. Since no claim was lodged and no mandatory claim documents such as claim form, all the sets of Key, non Repossession Letter from Financier, FIR copy, medical record of deceased, Post Mortem Report, Death Certificate, Fitness, Road Tax receipt, Original Registration Certificate were submitted to OP No.4. Hence, there is no question for any kind of deficiency of service arise.

6.                To prove the case, complainants tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.CW1/A alongwith documents Annexure-C1 to Annexure-C19.

7.                On the other hand, OPs No.1 to 3 tendered into evidence document Annexure R1. OP No.4, in its evidence tendered affidavit Ex.RW4/A.

8.                We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record carefully.

9.                Learned counsel for the complainants has argued that one Rajbir Singh availed a loan of Rs.686650/- for purchasing a tractor from OP No.2, who released/online disbursed the amount of Rs.672984/- to the dealer, from who said Rajbir Singh purchased a tractor and disbursed an amount of Rs.5100/- to OP No.4 for purchasing the policy on the name of “Loan Suraksha” for this loan amount. He further argued that OP No.2 assured that in case the policy holder i.e. said Rajbir Singh died, then this loan amount regarding tractor be recovered from OP No.4, from whom the policy was purchased. He further argued that on 08.05.2022, unfortunately, said Rajbir Singh while plugging his agriculture land with this new tractor suffered heart attack and died an accidental death at village Serhada. He further argued that on 17.06.2022, the matter was reported to OP No.2, who assured that now onward the OPs need not to pay any further installments regarding this tractor and the same is to be paid by OP No.4, from whom “Loan Suraksha” amount of tractor was secured, but despite assurance, recovery agent of OP No.2 visited the residence of complainants and demanded the installments regarding tractor from them. He further argued that OPs No.1 & 3 neither handover the policy of said Rajbir Singh to the LRs of said Rajbir Singh. He further argued that the above act and conduct of OPs, amounts to gross deficiency in service, on their part.

10.              On the other hand, learned counsel for OPs No.1 to 3 has argued that Rs.672984/- has been released to deceased on 28.02.2022, Rs.5100/- has been deducted against insurance policy, Rs.6871/- against processing fee and Rs.145/- against stamp duty deducted with the consent of deceased. He further argued that any deduction towards insurance product is done from loan amount to avoid burdening the borrower at the time of loan itself. He further argued that the company facilitates two types of loan insurance products that one is loan protector and the second covers accidental death. He further argued that in the present case, the deceased has on his own accord opted for and availed the policy from OP No.4, which covers only accidental death. He further argued that as per version of the complainant, the death of said Rajbir Singh is natural death nor accident death, as he suffered from heart attack.

11.              Learned counsel for OP No.4 has argued that the present complaint is premature, as no claim was filed/lodged with OP No.4 with regard to death of Rajbir Singh against Loan Suraksha policy. He further argued that since no claim was lodged and no mandatory claim documents such as claim form, all the sets of Key, non Repossession Letter from Financier, FIR copy, medical record of deceased, Post Mortem Report, Death Certificate, Fitness, Road Tax receipt, Original Registration Certificate were submitted to OP No.4. He further argued that hence, there is no question for any kind of deficiency of service arise. In order to support his above contentions, he placed reliance upon case law titled Smt. Alka Shukla Vs. Life Insurance Corporation of India, Civil Appeal No.3413 of 2019 (Arising out of SLP (C) No.32335 of 2016), DOD 24.04.2019 (SC).

12.              There is no dispute between the parties that the complainant purchased a New Holland tractor bearing Registration No.HR-08AD-3985, vide Registration Certificate Annexure C-2, after availing a loan of Rs.672984/- from OPs No.1 to 3, which was secured from OP No.4 under “Loan Suraksha” policy, vide which, said Rajbir Singh was insured for Sum Insured of Rs.6,80,000/- w.e.f. 09.03.2022 to 08.03.2027, vide policy document Annexure C-17. Said Rajbir Singh was died on 08.05.2022 vide his Death Certificate Annexure C-3. After the death of said Rajbir Singh, OPs No.1 to 3 sent a Demand Notice for Rs.52474/- to the complainants Annexure C-7. The OPs No.1 to 3 also filed an application under Section 9 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, before the Debt Recovery Tribunal Annexure C-11. However, the complainants and OPs No.1 to 3 settled the matter in question, upon which, Amit son of said Rajbir Singh had paid all the due amount of OPs No.1 to 3 vide receipts Annexure C-13 to C16, and gave an affidavit in this regard Annexure C-12 to the effect that they (complainants and OPs) were bound by the order of this Commission.

13.              Learned counsel for OP No.4 has firstly contended that the present complaint is premature, as no claim was filed/lodged, with OP No.4, with regard to death of Rajbir Singh against Loan Suraksha policy, as such, the present complaint is liable to be dismissed on the same ground. However, we found force in the above contentions of OP No.4, because, from perusal of entire case file, we found no document on the case file to show that the complainants had ever approached OP No.4 or filed any claim with OP No.4 with regard to Loan Suraksha Policy, rather, it seems that they directly approached this Commission, by way of filing the present complaint. So, in this way, the present complaint is premature and is liable to be dismissed, on this very ground.

14.              Learned counsel for OP No.4 has further contended that the said policy was Personal Accident Insurance Policy, and since as per own version of the complainants, said Rajbir Singh died while plugging his agriculture land with this new tractor and suffered heart attack, which is a natural death nor accident death and the same does not cover under the policy in question. Hence complainants are not entitled any claim from OP No.4. Contrary to it, learned counsel for the complainants has alleged that since said Rajbir Singh has been died due to heart attack, which comes under accidental death, as such, OP No.4 was liable to pay all the due loan amount to OPs No.1 to 3 as well as claim amount of Rs.6,80,000/- to the complainants, after the death of said Rajbir Singh, but OP No.4 did not pay the same, which amounts to deficiency in service on the part of OPs.

15.              To solve the above controversy, this Commission has extracted the definition of “accidental death” from the internet, which is Mark-A and reads as under:-

                   “An accidental death is an unnatural death that is caused by an accident, such as a slip and fall, traffic collision, or accidental poisoning. Accidental deaths are distinguished from death by natural causes, disease, and from intentional homicides and suicide. An accidental death can still be considered a homicide or suicide if a person was the unintentional cause”.

 

16.              From Risk Assumption Letter Annexure C-17, it is evident that the policy in question was Personal Accident Insurance Policy having sum insured of Rs.6,80,000/-. It is admitted fact, by the complainants, in their complaint that said Rajbir Singh was died due to heart attack, while plugging his agriculture land, with this new tractor. As per complainants, the same falls under accidental death, whereas, as per OP No.4, the same falls under natural death. However, it is pertinent to mention here as per above definition of accidental death Mark-X, an accidental death is an unnatural death that is caused by an accident, such as a slip and fall, traffic collision, or accidental poisoning, but in the case in hand, there is no documentary evidence, on the case file to show that any slip, fall, traffic collision or accidental poisoning were caused to said Rajbir Singh, which led to his (Rajbir Singh) death from heart attack, rather as per own version of complainants, he (Rajbir Singh) was died due to heart attack while plugging his agriculture land with this new tractor. Meaning thereby, the death of said Rajbir Singh was a natural death not accidental death. Since the policy in question was Personal Accidental Insurance Policy, therefore, the death claim of said Rajbir Singh, who died due to natural death, does not cover under the policy in question. In this way, the complainants, being legal heirs of said Rajbir Singh, are not entitled to receive any claim amount, under the policy in question, from the OPs. In this regard, our view is fully supported by the case law titled Smt. Alka Shukla Vs. Life Insurance Corporation of India (supra), wherein, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has held that “12. In the preset case, there is no evidence to show that any bodily injuries were suffered due to the fall from the motorcycle or that they led to the assured suffering a heart attack. There is no evidence to show that the accident took place as a result of any outward, violent and visible means. The assured died as a result of a heart attack which was not attributable to the accident. 13. For the above reasons, we are of the view that the judgment of the NCDRC dated 29 April 2016 does not suffer from any error. The appeal shall accordingly stand dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.” Hence, we found no deficiency in service, on the part of OPs. Complaint is devoid on merits and is liable to be dismissed.

17.              In view of our above discussion, we find no merit in the complaint and dismiss the same, with no order as to costs. A copy of this order be sent to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to the records, after due compliance.     

Announced in open Commission:

Dt.:24.05.2024.

                                                                                      (Neelam Kashyap)

                                                                                      President.

 

(Sunil Mohan Trikha).             (Suman Rana).              

Member.                                  Member.

 

 

 

Typed by: Sham Kalra, SSS.