DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,<br /> BATHINDA (PUNJAB)<br /> <br /> CC No.266 of 10-09-2007<br /> Decided on : 26-11-2007<br /> <br /> Murti Devi Wd/o Bhagwan Dass R/o H. No. 1, Ward No. 10, Near Truck Union, Talwandi Road, Raman Mandi, Tehsil Talwandi Sabo, District Bathinda.<br /> ... Complainant<br /> Versus<br /> <br /> The New India Assurance Company Limited, Divisional Office, The Mall, Bathinda through its Divisional Manager. ...Opposite party<br /> <br /> Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection<br /> Act, 1986.<br /> <br /> QUORUM :<br /> Sh. Lakhbir Singh, President<br /> Sh. Hira Lal Kumar, Member <br /> Dr. Phulinder Preet, Member<br /> <br /> For the Complainant : Sh. D.C.Garg, Advocate.<br /> For the Opposite parties : Sh. Sh. J D Nayyar, Advocate. <br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> LAKHBIR SINGH, PRESIDENT <br /> 1. Bhagwan Dass husband of the complainant was having car No. UP-78-E-1134. He got it insured with the opposite party under Insurance Certificate No. 360600/31/06/02/00001951 w.e.f. 31.10.06 to 31.10.07. This Insurance certificate also covered compulsory personal accident insurance to owner-cum-driver to the extent of Rs. 2.00 Lacs. A sum of Rs. 100/- was separately charged for the same. It is alleged by the complainant that opposite party had obtained his signatures on blank proposal form and after that insurance certificate was issued. It is the duty of the opposite party to issue copy of the proposal form within 30 days after its acceptance. Requisite documents i.e. copy of the registration certificate and driving licence of Bhagwan Das were also received by the opposite party. His signatures were obtained on blank proposal form. On 20/1/07, Bhawan Das was driving this car. It had met with an accident due to the collision with Tractor Trolley in the revenue limits of Police Station Raman, District Bathinda. He received injuries and succumbed to them. Criminal case bearing FIR No. 6 dated 21.1.07 was registered in Police Station, Raman. Dead body was subjected to Post Mortem examination. Development Officer of the opposite party namely Sh. S P Bansal was informed about the death of her husband, but to no effect. Again intimation was given regarding his death to the opposite party through registered letter dated 6.6.07. Sh. S C Bansal, Investigator was appointed by the opposite party who has submitted his Investigation report. Copies of the F.I.R., post mortem report, original death certificate and claim form duly thumb marked by her were submitted to the Investigator during the course of investigation. Letter dated 12.7.07 was issued by the opposite party demanding legal heirs certificate although the same is not required. Despite this, she wrote letter dated 13.8.07. Her duly sworn affidavit and the affidavits of her children namely Reshma Rani, Rajesh Kumar, Shapali Kumar and Pawan Kumar were also sent. Her children have given no objection if claim amount is paid to her. Neither reply has been sent nor claim amount has been paid to her. Act and conduct of the opposite party has caused her mental pains and sufferings. In these circumstances, instant complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (Here-in-after referred to as `Act') has been preferred seeking direction from this Forum to the opposite party to pay her claim amount of Rs. 2.00 Lacs alongwith interest @ 18% P.A. from the date of death till the date of payment; Rs. 25,000/- as compensation for mental agony, pains and sufferings and Rs. 10,000/- towards cost of the complaint.<br /> 2. Opposite party filed its version taking preliminary objections that complaint is not maintainable in the present form, complainant has no cause of action; this Forum has got no jurisdiction to entertain and try the complaint; complaint is false and frivolous and complainant is estopped from filing the complaint by her act and conduct. It admits that car in question stands in the name of Bhagwan Dass. There is no denial about the insuring of the Car and the fact that owner cum driver was assured for a sum of Rs. 2.00 Lacs under personal accident insurance cover. It denies that the documents were deposited with the Investigator. Intimation of the accident on 6.6.07 is not denied. Letter dated 12.7.07 was issued demanding legal heir certificate of Bhagwan Dass which is mandatory as per its law and rules and that has not been sent. It denies the remaining averments in the complaint.<br /> 3. In support of her averments contained in the complaint, complainant has produced in evidence her affidavit (Ex. C-1), photocopy of certificate of insurance (Ex. C-2), photocopy of FIR dated 21.1.07 (Ex. C-3), photocopy of post mortem report (Ex. C-4), photocopy of letter dated 13.8.07 (Ex. C-5), photocopy of letter dated 12.7.07 (Ex. C-6), photocopies of affidavits of Reshma Rani, Rajesh Kumar, Shapali Kumar, Pawan Kumar & complainant (Ex. C-7 to Ex. C-11) and photocopy of letter dated 6.6.07 alongwith photocopy of postal receipt (Ex. C-12)<br /> 4. In reubttal, on behalf of the opposite party affidavit of Sh. P K Jain, Senior Divisional Manager (Ex. R-1) and photocopy of letter dated 12.7.07 (Ex. R-2) have been tendered in evidence.<br /> 5. We have heard leaned counsel for the parties. Besides this, we have gone through the record and written briefs of arguments submitted on behalf of the parties.<br /> 6. Facts that Bhagwan Dass had purchased Insurance Certificate effective from 31.10.06 to 30.10.07 covering personal accident insurance of owner cum driver for a sum of Rs. 2.00 Lacs, accident dated 20.1.07 of Bhagwan Dass while driving the car and his death are not in dispute. Even otherwise Ex. C-2 to Ex. C-4 are the copies of Insurance of private car, FIR under Section 304-A, 279, 427, 337 I.P.C. registered in Police Station Raman regarding accident dated 20.1.07 and post mortem report of Bhagwan Dass respectively. Intimation regarding the death of Bhagwan Dass was admittedly given by the complainant on 6.6.07 through registered letter. Required documents have been received from the complainant as per rules. Opposite party is not paying the claim amount on the ground that he has not submitted the legal heir certificate. It has issued letter dated 12.7.07, copies of which are Ex. C-6 & Ex. R-2. In the affidavit Ex. R-1 Sh. P K Jain, Senior Divisional Manager of the opposite party has stated that claim is payable only as per rules, terms and conditions of the policy and that legal heir certificate is mandatory as per rules.<br /> 7. Mr. Garg, learned counsel for the complainant vehementally argued that legal heir certificate is not at all required for deciding the claim of the complainant regarding the death of her husband. Opposite party in order to cause inordinate delay is unnecessarily harassing the complainant.<br /> 8. Mr. Nayyar, learned counsel for the opposite parties argued that legal heir certificate is required to avoid further complication of claim by another person and it is mandatory as per law and rules of the Insurance Company.<br /> 9. We have considered the respective arguments and we feel ourselves inclined to agree with the learned counsel for the complainant. Opposite party has not placed and proved on record terms and conditions of the insurance showing that claim regarding compulsory personal accident insurance to owner-cum-driver cannot be passed until and unless legal heir certificate is produced. There is nothing in Ex. C-2 i.e. certificate of insurance regarding the 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. In this case amount involved is not debt or security to which deceased Bhagwan Dass 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 is an amount which the legal representatives of the deceased can claim on 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, fact is clear that legal heir certificate is not mandatory for deciding the claim regarding death of Bhagwan Das. Complainant has also sent letter to the Divisional Manager of the opposite party on 13.8.07 and copy of the same is Ex. C-5. This letter was in response to his letter dated 12.7.07. Alongwith letter she sent her own affidavit Ex. C-11 mentioning that she as wife and Reshma Rani, Shapali Kumar, Rajesh Kumar and Pawan Kumar are the legal heirs of deceased of Bhagwan Das and he has no other legal heir. Not to speak of this, affidavits of Reshma Rani, Rajesh Kumar, Shapali Kumar and Pawan Kumar who as per them are all majors, were also sent alongwith letter. Copies of their affidavits are Ex. C-7 to Ex. C-10 respectively. Issues of the complainant and deceased Bhagwan Dass in their affidavits have made it clear that they have no objection if the personal accident claim is paid to the complainant alone. In these circumstances, delay in deciding the claim of the complainant on the grounds 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, opposite party is not deciding it. Hence, deficiency in service on its part is writ large.<br /> <br /> <br /> 10. Now question arises as to which relief should be accorded to the complainant. In our view direction deserves to be given to the opposite party to pay to the complainant insured sum Rs. 2.00 Lacs in the policy on account of death of Bhagwan Dass alongwith interest @ 9% P.A. w.e.f. 7.9.07(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 realisation. Complainant is craving for compensation of Rs.20,000/- for financial loss, mental tension, agony, botheration and harassment. 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 /> 11. No other point was urged before us at the time of arguments.<br /> 12. In the premises written above, complaint is allowed against the opposite party with cost of Rs. 1000/-. Opposite party is directed to do as under :-<br /> i) Pay to the complainant Rs. 2.00 Lacs i.e. sum insured under the policy alongwith interest @ 9% P.A. from 7.9.07 till payment.<br /> Compliance of this order be made within 30 days from the date of receipt of its copy. <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> Copy of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost and file be consigned to record room.<br /> Pronounced :<br /> 26-11--2007 <br /> (Lakhbir Singh )<br /> President <br /> <br /> <br /> (Hira Lal Kumar )<br /> Member<br /> <br /> <br /> (Dr. Phulinder Preet)<br /> Member <br /> <br /> <br />