Chandigarh

DF-II

CC/689/2015

Mahinder Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Oriental Insurance Company Limited - Opp.Party(s)

Ajmer Lal Pundeer Adv.

22 Jun 2016

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II, U.T. CHANDIGARH

======

Consumer Complaint  No	:	689 of 2015
Date  of  Institution	:	02.12.2015
Date   of   Decision	:	22.06.2016

 

 

 

 

 

Mahinder Singh son of Late Jyoti Ram, R/o # No.2407, Dadumajra Colony, Sector 38-W, Chandigarh.  

 

             …..Complainant

Versus

 

1]  The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Divisional Office No.99-100, 1^st Floor, Sector 17-B, Chandigarh through tis Senior Divisional Manager.

 

2]  The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Regional Office, SCO No.109-110-111, Sector 17-D, Chandigarh, through its Chief Regional Manager.

 

….. Opposite Parties

 

BEFORE:  SH.JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU 

                               PRESIDING MEMBER

 

         MRS.PRITI MALHOTRA, MEMBER

 

 

Argued by:-

            Sh.A.L.Pundeer, Counsel for the complainant.

            Sh.Gaurav Gupta, Proxy Counsel for Sh.Harsh Chopra, Counsel for the OPs.

 

 

PER JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU, MEMBER

 

 

          As per the case, the wife of complainant, Smt.Leela Devi, permanent employee of OPs, died on 14.11.2010 during service.  It is averred that late Smt.Leela Devi was illiterate Class IV employee and after regularization, she was covered under various schemes. She was also covered under GTIS scheme and deduction of Rs.210/- per annum towards annual premium under the scheme was being made from her salary (Ann.C-1 & C-2).  It is also averred that the claim as per GTIS scheme arisen on account of death of Leela Devi to the tune of Rs.2.00 lacs was to be paid to her nominee/legal heir and as such, the complainant being husband/legal heir, filed the claim with the OPs, but the same has not been settled by the complainant even after lapse of two years.  A legal notice was also sent to the OPs, but to no avail.  Hence, this complaint.

 

2]       The Opposite Parties have filed reply and took objection that the complainant is not a consumer being government servant. It is admitted that Smt.Leela Devi, passed on 14.11.2010 was covered under GTIS and her claim is pending with the OPs.  It is stated that the Opposite Parties conveyed the requirement about the submission of succession certificate to the complainant and other legal heirs of the deceased employee vide letter dated 19.11.2014 (An.R-5). It is pleaded that Sonu Kumar, has filed Succession Petitioner for issuance of succession certificate in respect of the Group Term Insurance Scheme – GTIS claim of deceased Ms.Leela Devi, which is pending before the court of Sh.Anubhav Sharma, Ld.CJM, Chandigarh (Annexure R-1 colly) and that this fact has been concealed by the complainant from this Forum.  It is also pleaded that by deliberately omitting to implead other family members/legal heirs of the deceased employee, the complainant has tried to usurp the claim of others. Pleading no deficiency in service and denying rest of the allegations, it is prayed that the complaint be dismissed.

 

3]       Rejoinder has also been filed by the complainant thereby reiterating the assertions as made in the complaint and controverting that of the reply.

 

4]       Parties led evidence in support of their contentions.

 

5]       We have heard the ld.Counsel for the complainant and have also perused the record.

 

6]       The complainant, who is the husband of the life assured – Smt.Leela Devi, regular employee of the Opposite Party and was covered under GTIS Scheme against which an annual premium of Rs.210/- was being regularly deducted from her salary.  The unfortunate demise of Smt.Leela Devi has given rise to the death benefits of the GTIS scheme under which an amount of Rs.2.00 lakh was to be paid to nominee/legal heirs of the deceased. 

 

7]       The complainant being husband of the deceased/life assured, filed a claim with the OPs, but the said claim is still pending, as unpaid, giving rise to the present dispute. 

 

8]       The OPs while admitting to the factum of the pending GTIS claim of late Smt.Leela Devi, have claimed that the complainant alone was not entitled, as there was no specific mention about a nominee, whereas, as per their record, late Leela Devi had nominated her husband - the complainant, her two sons namely Sandeep & Sonu along with her daughter namely Sonia, with equal proportion of share, with regard to other terminal benefits.  It is also mentioned by the OPs that the record maintained with the Divisional Office No.1, Chandigarh, the documents pertaining to individual nomination is not available in the file and therefore the complainant alone cannot be allowed to claim the entire GTIS amount.  The Ops have also revealed that one of the son of deceased Leela Devi, namely Sonu Kumar, had preferred to move the court of Sh.Anubhav Sharma, Civil Judge (Sr.Div.), Chandigarh for the issuance of Succession Certificate, favouring all the Legal Heirs of late Smt.Leela Devi. 

 

9]       As per the merits of the case, the fact with regard to the lodging of the claim under GTIS scheme pertaining to the late Smt.Leela Devi, by the complainant, is established.  However, the documents placed on record by the parties and even the admission by the counsel for the complainant that all the Legal Heirs of late Smt.Leela Devi, are entitled to the claim amount in equal proportion, and in view of the pending applications for the issuance of succession certificate before the court of Sh.Anubhav Sharma, Civil Judge (Sr.Dvin.), Chandigarh, the OPs are duty bound to release the amount in the name of the LRS, so mentioned in the application for succession certificate in equal proportion. 

 

10]      Though the OPs have argued for the dismissal of the present complaint, but the merits of the case do not disentitle the complainant of his rightful share in the GTIS claim lodged with them.  The OPs should have in the very first place asked for the complete details of the family from the complainant so that the exact number of dependents/LRs could have been ascertained and an offer of disbursal of the amount in equal proportion be disclosed to the complainant and other family members.  The OPs preferred to leave the dispute pending between the family members leading to the filing of a Succession Certificate by one of her sons to lay claim of the insured amount in equal proportion to all the family members. It is understood that as per the terms & conditions of GTIS, the succession certificate becomes mandatory only if the actual fact about the LRs is not confirmed.  Therefore, the complainant is entitled to his rightful share of the claim amount, along with other family members, which the Opposite Parties failed to disburse.

 

11]      In the light of above observations, we are of the concerted view that the Opposite Parties are found deficient in rendering proper service to the complainant. Hence, the present complaint of the Complainant is allowed qua OPs jointly & severally, with directions to pay the claim amount, to the complainant, as per the succession certificate, forthwith.

 

         The certified copy of this order be sent to the parties free of charge, after which the file be consigned.

 

Announced

22^nd June, 2016                                                           

                                                                        Sd/-

(JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU)

PRESIDING MEMBER

 

 

Sd/-

(PRITI MALHOTRA)

MEMBER