DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, MANSA. Complaint No.147/27.08.2007 Decided on : 26.08.2008 Vijay Kumar S/o late Sh. Bhagwan Dass resident of Gurdware Wali Gali, Bareta, Tehsil Budhlada, District Mansa. ..... Complainants. VERSUS 1. The Manager, The Mansa Central Cooperative Bank, Branch Bareta. 2. National Insurance Company limited, Mansa. ..... Opposite Parties. Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. ..... Present: Sh.S.K.Chhabra, counsel for the complainant. Sh.S.K.Singla,, counsel for Opposite Party No.1. Sh. B.D.Jindal, counsel for Opposite Party No.2. Before: Sh.Lakhbir Singh, President. Sh.Sarat Chander, Member. Smt.Neena Rani Gupta, Member. Order: Bhagwan Dass was the father of the complainant. Account No.2784 was opened by him with opposite party No.1 on 16.8.2002. Opposite party No.1 had floated a scheme that who-so-ever account holder would keep at least Rs.1,100/- in his saving account continuously with it would be got insured with Opposite party No.2 and that in case of death of the insured account holder, a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- would be payable by the opposite party Insurance Company. Accordingly, Bhagwan Dass was got insured by opposite party No.1. He has since died on 12.5.2004 in an accident. All the relevant documents were submitted with the opposite parties for claiming the insurance amount. Opposite parties repudiated Contd........2 : 2 : the claim vide No.4100/4204/820002. It is alleged by the complainant that claim has been illegally and arbitrarily repudiated. Representations were made by him (complainant) to the various authorities including the Deputy Commissioner, Mansa. He was advised to knock the door of this Forum for getting his grievances redressed. It was further averred by him that act and conduct of the opposite parties by way of repudiating the claim has caused him harassment ,inconvenience and mental agony to him besides his loss of time and money. 2) In these circumstances complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred as the 'Act' ) has been preferred by the complainant seeking a direction from this Forum to the opposite parties to pay him the claim amount of Rs.1,00,000/- along with interest; pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation besides litigation expenses. 3) Opposite party No.1 admits that account was got opened by Bhagwan Dass with it by way of mentioning his son Tek Chand as his nominee. Complainant has no right to file the complaint. Complainant is not its consumer. There is no deficiency in service on its part. 4) Opposite party No.2 filed separate reply taking legal objections that complaint is not maintainable in the present form; complainant is not nominee of deceased Bhagwan Dass; he has got no locus standi to file the present complaint; complaint is barred by time; complainant is not its consumer and complaint has been filed by way of concealing true facts. It admits that father of the complainant had got opened Account No.2784 with opposite party No.1. He was duty bound to keep Rs.1100/- in this saving account with opposite party 1 but he failed to do so. He could not pay the full premium. There is no averment that deceased was not insured with it. Inter-alia its plea is that death of Bhagwan Dass was not accidental. Rather he had committed suicide after having quarrel with his family members and after feeling annoyed with them by laying on railway track while he was under the influence of liquor. Contd........3 : 3 : On the request of legal heirs of Bhagwan Dass deceased, Sh.Jiwan Kumar Garg, investigator was appointed to investigate the matter about the death of Bhagwan Dass. Matter was thoroughly probed by him. Statements of the sons and daughter of the deceased were recorded by him. They had told that their father had taken liquor and had picked up quarrel with the family members. He had felt annoyed and had gone out under the influence of liquor in the evening and had committed suicide by laying on the railway track. Since suicide was committed by him, his legal heirs or his nominee are not entitled to get the insurance claim as per terms and conditions of the policy. Claim has already been repudiated in September, 2004. It denies the remaining averments in the complaint. 5) We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record. 6) To support his averments in the complaint, complainant is relying upon affidavit of Vijay Kumar Ex.C-1, copy of pass book (Ex.C-2), Death Certificate (Ex.C-3), letter dated 11.1.2005 (Ex.C-4), letter dated 21.7.2003 (Ex.C-5), another letter dated 4.3.2005 (Ex.C-6), Post Mortem Report of Bhagwan Dass (Ex.C-7), request of Tek Chand (Ex.C-8) and affidavit of Sh.Tek Chand (Ex.C-9). 7) In rebuttal, on behalf of the opposite parties Group Personal Accident Policy (Ex.OP-1), photocopy of ledger (Ex.OP-2), details of saving bank in respect of Account No.2784 (Ex.OP-3), Account opening form (Ex.OP-4), affidavit of Sh. Subhash Chander (Ex.OP-A), another affidavit of Sh.J.K.Garg, Investigator (Ex.OP-B), investigatin report (Ex.OP-C), details of saving bank in respect of Account No.2784 (Ex.OP-D), Account opening form (Ex.OP-E), register showing particulars (Ex.OP-F), Certificate (Ex.OP-G), Statement of Sh.Ram Avtar (Ex.OP-H), Statement of Smt.Krishna Devi (Ex.OP-I), Statement of Sh.Som Nath (Ex.OP-J), Identity card of Som Nath (Ex.OP-K), photocopy of affidavit of Sh.Som Nath (Ex.OP-L), photocopy of ration card (Ex.OP-M), photocopy Contd........4 : 4 : of death certificate of Bhagwan Dsss (Ex.OP-N), statement of Sh.Manpreet Singh (Ex.OP-O), report by railway authorities (Ex.OP-P) and Post Mortem report (Ex.OP-Q) have been tendered in evidence. 8) Some facts do not remain in dispute in this complaint. They are that deceased Bhagwan Dass was maintaining saving account with opposite party No.1 and relevant page of his pass book is Ex.C-2. Under the scheme opposite party No.1 got him insured with opposite party No.2 as he was keeping Rs.1100/- in his account. As per the Group Personal Accident Policy, policy was purchased for all the account holders including the deceased as is evident from Ex.OP-1. Deceased Bhagwan Dass has died and copy of his death certificate is Ex.C-3. First argument pressed into service by the learned counsel for opposite party No.2 is that insured has died on 12.5.2004 and this complaint was filed on 27.8.2007 and, as such, it is barred by time. Mr. Chhabra, learned counsel for the complainant argued that no doubt, date of death of Bhagwan Dass is 12.5.2004, yet one thing is clear that Tek Chand son of the deceased was moving applications to the various authorities as is evident from Ex.C-4 to C-5, but no relief was provided. Ultimately complaint has been filed on 27.8.2007 which is well within time. 9) We have considered these rival arguments and we do not feel ourselves inclined to agree with the learned counsel for the complainant. As per Section 24(A) of the Act, District Forum cannot admit a complaint unless it is filed within 2 years from the date on which cause of action arises. 10) Admittedly, insurance claim has been repudiated . Opposite party No.2 has taken a specific stance that it was repudiated in September, 2004. Complainant does not refute the repudiation of the claim in this month of 2004. It means that cause of action first accrued to the complainant to file this complaint from the date of repudiation of the claim. Even if it is taken that repudiation of the claim was made on the last day of Contd........5 : 5 : September, 2004, even then cause of action accrued to him on the first day of October, 2004. He could approach the District Forum for getting the relief within 2 years from 1.10.2004 onwards. Fact that Tek Chand moved applications to some authorities cannot, in any way, extend the period of limitation. When period of limitation starts running, it continues running. Complainant has not sought condonation of delay for filing the complaint. In these circumstances, we are of the considered view that this complaint is hopelessly barred by time. 11) Another material question for determination is as to whether Bhagwan Dass had committed suicide or his death was accidental. 12) Learned counsel for the complainant argued that in the copy of the post mortem report, which is Ex.C-7, information which was supplied to the doctors conducting the post mortem regarding the cause of accident was alleged railway accident. He further argued that from the affidavits Ex.C-1 of the complainant and Ex.C-7 of Tek Chand, it is established that death was accidental and Bhagwan Dass did not commit suicide. For this reliance is placed on the authority in the case of Dhukhi Lal Jaiswal Versus Branch Manager, Life Insurance Corporation of India and another, II(1997) CPJ 192 in which the insured while under intoxication had fallen into river due to intoxication and claim was not settled. It was held that complainant was entitled to the sum insured. Learned counsel for opposite party No.2 countered the arguments of the learned counsel for the complainant by submitting that in the facts and circumstances death of Bhagwan Dass was not accidental. He had committed suicide due to which complainant and other legal heirs of the deceased are not entitled to the assured amount. After considering the rival submissions and appraising the evidence on record, we find considerable force in the argument of the learned counsel for opposite party No.2. Sh.Jiwan Kumar Garg, investigator was appointed by opposite party No.2 for investigating the matter regarding the death of insured Bhagwan Dass. During the course of Contd........6 : 6 : his investigation he recorded statements of various persons and came to the conclusion that deceased had left his house on 11.5.2004 on 2200 hours under the influence of liquor after having quarrel with his family members and thereafter committed suicide by laying down on the railway track and coming under the running train due to which opposite party Insurance Company is not liable. Copy of the Investigation Report dated 12.7.2004 is Ex.OP-C. Investigator had contacted Sh.Phool Chand who had confirmed the death of deceased as suicidal committed under the influence of liquor after having quarrel with his family members. Ex.OP-H is the copy of statement of Sh.Ram Avtar recorded by Som Nath son of the deceased. This statement corroborates the version of the investigator given in his report. Not to speak of this, statements of Krishna Devi wife of the deceased, Som Nath and Manpreet Singh, copies of which are Ex.OP-I,J and O were also recorded. Manpreet Singh stated that Krishna Devi and Som Nath had made statements about the death of Bhagwan Dass in his presence. Men may tell lies, but circumstances cannot. Evidence clearly establishes that deceased had consumed liquor before his death. He had an alteration with his family members and thereafter he had gone to the railway track. There is no evidence that he had any other occasion to go to the railway track than after feeling annoyed with his family members after having quarrel with them. Facts, circumstances and evidence give clear indication that it is a case of commission of suicide by the deceased. Report of the investigator is a detailed one and is based on the statements of the concerned persons. It cannot be said to have been made on the basis of conjectures and surmises. Hence we find it difficult to hold that death of Bhagwan Dass was accidental. Rather it was suicidal and as such insurance claim is not payable. Its repudiation is justified, legal and valid. No deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties is proved. 13) Complaint is also bad for non joinder of necessary parties. It has been filed by Vijay Kumar one son of deceased Bhagwan Dass. It is Contd........7 : 7 : not his case that there are no other legal heirs of the deceased. No doubt, in Ex.C-9, Tek Chand son of the deceased has stated that he has authorized Vijay Kumar to file the complaint, but this itself is no legal authority. No Power of Attorney and authority given by him in favour of the complainant is on the record to show that he has relinquished his claim regarding the death of his father and complainant has been authorized by him to file the complaint on his behalf. Similarly other legal heirs of the deceased are not parties in this complaint. 14) From an overall assessment of the facts, circumstances and the evidence discussed above, crux of the matter is that complainant has failed to establish his case. Accordingly complaint is dismissed. Parties are left to bear their own costs. Copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of charges and file be consigned to record. Pronounced: 26.08.2008 Neena Rani Gupta, Sarat Chander, Lakhbir Singh, Member. Member. President.
