DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,<br /> BATHINDA (PUNJAB)<br /> <br /> C.C. No. 261 of 5.9.2007<br /> Decided on : 17.12.2007<br /> <br /> 1.Kushal Deep Kaur W/o Lt. Sh. Harbir Singh S/o Pargat Singh Maini.<br /> 2.Sehaj Preet Singh Maini minor son of S. Harbir Singh;<br /> 3.Kanwar Deep Singh minor son of S. Harbir Singh through their mother Kushal Deep Kaur next friend and natural guardian of the minor complainants No. 2 and 3 who have no adverse interest to the claim of the minor complainants. All are residents of V.P.O. Kotha Guru, District Bathinda. <br /> ...... Complainants<br /> <br /> Versus. <br /> <br /> The New India Assurance Company Limited, Divisional Office, The Mall, Bathinda through its Divisional Manager.<br /> ...... Opposite party<br /> <br /> Complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986<br /> <br /> QUORUM:<br /> <br /> Sh.Lakhbir Singh, President<br /> Sh.Hira Lal Kumar, Member<br /> Dr.Phulinder Preet, Member<br /> <br /> For the complainants : Sh. Naresh Garg, Advocate<br /> For the opposite party : Sh. Jaideep Nayyar, Advocate <br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> LAKHBIR SINGH, PRESIDENT:-<br /> 1. This complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (Here-in-after referred to as the Act) has been preferred by the complainants seeking direction from this Forum to the opposite party to pay them claim amount of Rs.2,00,000/- under Compulsory Personal Accident Cover and interest on it @ 18% P.A from the date of death of the assured till the date of payment; Rs. 25,000/- as damages for mental agony, pain and sufferings and Rs.10,000/- as costs of the complaint.<br /> 2. Briefly put, the case of the complainants is that Harbir Singh was husband of complainant No. 1 and father of complainants No. 2 & 3. He was owner of Car No. PB-11Y-5354. It was comprehensively insured with the opposite party. Insurance Certificate No. 360600/31/06/01/00003110 was issued. It was effective from 31.3.2007 to 30.3.2008. Insured declared value of the vehicle was Rs. 1,20,000/-. A sum of Rs. 3,357/- was charged as premium. Under this insurance certificate, opposite party covered compulsory personal accident to owner-cum-driver to the tune of Rs. 2,00,000/-. For that a sum of Rs. 100/- was charged. On 2.6.2007, Harbir Singh owner-cum-driver of the car was driving it. He had met with an accident with Bolero Kemper No. PB-03P-9144 in the revenue limits of P.S Nahianwala, District Bathinda. He had died. Criminal case with FIR No. 52 dated 2.6.2007 was registered in P.S Nahianwala against the driver of the Bolero Kemper. Dead body of Harbir Singh was subjected to post mortem examination in Civil Hospital, Bathinda. His death was intimated to the opposite party through letter dated 4.6.2007 by complainant No.1. Claim of car was lodged as it was completely damaged. She also sent duly signed claim form, attested copies of the FIR and post mortem examination through registered letters dated 7.6.2007 and 23.6.2007 claiming the amount. Spot surveyor was appointed by the opposite party. Spot survey and investigation reports were submitted. Letter dated 12.7.2007 was received by complainant No. 1 from opposite party vide which it demanded legal heirs certificate, although same is not required. She wrote letters dated 4.8.2007 and 8.8.2007 and also sent her duly sworn affidavit and that of her father-in-law Pargat Singh Maini demanding the claim amount, but all in vain. It is further asserted by them that they are the only class I legal heirs of the deceased. Their allegation is that spot surveyor and Investigator had obtained the signatures of complainant No. 1 on some blank papers, vouchers and forms etc. with the assurance that total loss of the car and the claim amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- would be paid at the earliest. Neither claim has been paid nor any reply has been sent. Non-payment of the claim amount has caused them mental agony and pains.<br /> 3. On being put to notice, opposite party filed reply of the complaint taking the preliminary objections that complaint is not maintainable in the present form; complainants do not have any cause of action to file the complaint; this Forum has got no jurisdiction to entertain and try it; complaint is false and frivolous and complainants are estopped from filing it by their act and conduct. It does not deny specifically the factum that Harbir Singh was the owner of the car and it was got comprehensively insured and that insurance certificate also covered compulsory personal insurance to owner-cum-driver for Rs. 2,00,000/- for which a sum of Rs. 100/- was charged. It denies that documents mentioned in para no. 4 of the complaint were taken from the complainants. It admits that claim form, copies of the FIR and post mortem report and original death certificate were sent by complainant No.1. After receiving intimation of accident, Surveyor and Investigator were appointed. According to it, letter dated 12.7.2007 was issued demanding legal heir certificate of Harbir Singh, which is mandatory as per law and as per rules of the insurance company. Even otherwise, certificate would go to prove as to who are the legal heirs. It is required to avoid any further complications. No blank papers were ever got signed from complainant No. 1 by the Surveyor or Investigator. It admits that a sum of Rs. 100/- was charged to cover compulsory personal accident to owner-cum-driver for an amount of Rs. 2,00,000/-. It denies the remaining averments in the complaint. <br /> 4. In support of their allegations and averments in the complaint, complainants have tendered into evidence affidavit (Ex.C.1) of Smt. Kushal Deep Kaur complainant No. 1, photocopy of certificate of insurance (Ex.C.2), photocopy of FIR dated 2.6.2007 (Ex.C.3), photocopy of post mortem report (Ex.C.4), photocopy of driving licence of Harbir Singh (Ex.C.5), photocopies of letters dated 4.6.2007, 7.6.2007, 23.6.2007, 4.8.2007, 8.8.2007 & 12.7.2007 (Ex.C.6 to Ex.C.11) respectively and photocopies of affidavits of Pargat Singh and complainant No.1 (Ex.C.12 & Ex.C.13).<br /> 5. On behalf of the opposite party, reliance has been placed on affidavit (Ex.R.1) of Sh. P.K. Jain, its Senior Divisional manager and photocopy of letter dated 12.7.2007 (Ex.R.2).<br /> 6. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record. Apart from this, we have considered written arguments submitted by the parties.<br /> 7. There is no specific denial of the fact that Harbir Singh was the owner of the car and he had purchased comprehensive insurance policy from the opposite party. Copy of the certificate of insurance is Ex.C.2. Through this policy, opposite party covered compulsory personal accident to owner-cum-driver to the tune of Rs. 2,00,000/- by charging Rs. 100/-. After Harbir Sigh had died in the accident while driving this car, claim was lodged by complainant No. 1 with the opposite party. Copy of the intimation letter dated 4.6.2007 is Ex.C.6. Opposite party does not deny the submission of claim form, copy of the FIR, copy of post mortem report and original death certificate. Even otherwise, copies of the FIR and post mortem report are Ex.C.3 and Ex.C.4 respectively. Opposite party sent letter dated 12.7.2007, copy of which is Ex.C.11, directing complainant No. 1 to produce legal heir certificate for proceeding further regarding the claim. She sent reply of the letter, copies of which are Ex.C.9 and Ex.C.10, stating that there is no such condition in the insurance certificate regarding the production of legal heir certificate after the death of Harbir Singh, owner-cum-driver and that it is unnecessary delaying the claim.<br /> 8. Mr. Garg, learned counsel for the complainants argued that insurance policy has not been issued by the opposite party till today. Even its terms and conditions have not been produced to show the necessity of production of legal heir certificate. He further argued that opposite party is unnecessarily harassing the complainants and delaying the claim.<br /> 9. Mr. Nayyar, learned counsel for the opposite party argued that legal heir certificate is required to avoid further claim by any other person. Legal heir certificate is mandatory as per law and rules of the opposite party.<br /> 10. We have considered the respective arguments and we feel ourselves inclined to agree with the learned counsel for the complainants. Opposite party has not placed and proved on record copy of the terms and conditions of the insurance showing that claim regarding compulsory personal accident to owner-cum-driver cannot be passed till legal heir certificate is produced. There is nothing in Ex.C.2 i.e. certificate of insurance regarding production of such like certificate. Succession certificate/legal heir certificate can be granted only in respect of 'debts' or 'securities' to which deceased was entitled. This amount is on account of his death on the basis of the fact that case is covered under the compulsory personal accident insurance. It is an amount of compensation sanctioned on account of the death of the deceased and is, therefore, not an asset belonging to the deceased, but an amount which the legal representatives of the deceased can claim of their own account. For this, we are fortified by the observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Smt. Rukhsana & Ors.Vs. Smt. Nazrunnisa & Anr.-JT-2000(4)SC-346. Similar view has been held in the case of Chitrapu Chinabapanalah & Ors. Vs. Union of India-I(2005)ACC-822. Hence, legal heir certificate is not mandatory for deciding the claim regarding the death of Harbir Singh. Complainant No. 1 has also sent reply to the letter dated 12.7.2007, copy of which is Ex.C.9, to the Divisional Manager of the opposite party stating that there is no condition in the insurance certificate regarding the production of legal heir certificate. Alongwith reply of the letter dated 12.7.2007, she sent her own affidavit and the affidavit of her father-in-law Pargat Singh, copies of which are Ex.C.13 & Ex.C.12 respectively, making it clear that she and complainants No. 2 & 3 are the only legal heirs and that there is no other class I legal heir of the deceased. Father of the deceased has given no objection if the entire claim amount is paid to the complainants. In these circumstances, delay in deciding the claim of the complainants on the ground that legal heir certificate has not been produced is certainly illegal and arbitrary. Opposite party is required to adjudicate the claim within three months. Despite this, it is not being decided. Hence, deficiency in service on its part is proved. <br /> 11. Now question arises as to which relief should be accorded to the complainants. In our view, direction deserves to be given to the opposite party to pay to the complainants assured sum i.e. Rs. 2,00,000/- on account of the death of Harbir Singh alongwith interest @ 9% P.A w.e.f. 5.9.2007 (The date calculated on expiry of three months from the date of lodging of claim/giving of intimation of death, a period required for processing the claim in an effective manner in normal course) till realization. Complainants are craving for compensation of Rs. 25,000/- for financial loss, mental agony, pains and sufferings. There is no case to allow it in the face of the relief going to be accorded as above, particularly in view of the authority in the case of Life Insurance Corporation of India Vs. Miss Bhupinder Kaur (Minor) and others-2002(2)CLT-646 wherein Hon'ble State Commission of Punjab held that interest is not granted within the contract between the insured and insurer, but ;within the provisions of Section 14(1)(d) of the Act on deficiency in rendering service being established for compensating the complainant. Held accordingly.<br /> 12. No other point was urged before us at the time of arguments.<br /> 13. In the result, complaint is allowed against the opposite party with costs of Rs. 1,000/-. Opposite party is directed to do as under :-<br /> ( i ) Pay to the complainants Rs. 2,00,000/- i.e. sum assured through the policy alongwith interest @ 9% P.A from 5.9.2007 till payment.<br /> ( ii ) In case, claim is paid, the amount of the shares of minor complainants No.2 & 3 would be deposited in fixed deposit in some nationalised bank. They would be entitled to withdraw this amount on attaining majority. However, it is made clear that complainant No. 1 can get interest on the amount of the shares of minor complainants and it would be used for their welfare. <br /> ( iii ) Compliance of this order be made within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.<br /> 14. Copy of this order be sent to the parties free of cost. File be also consigned.<br /> <br /> Pronounced (Lakhbir Singh)<br /> 17.12.2007 President<br /> <br /> <br /> (Hira Lal Kumar)<br /> Member<br /> <br /> <br /> (Dr.Phulinder Preet)<br /> Member <br /> <br /> 'bsg' <br /> <br />