Punjab

Sangrur

CC/509/2017

Harjinder Kaur - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Sangrur Central Co-op. Bank Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

SH.G.S.Chahal

19 Mar 2018

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR

                            

                                                                       Complaint No. 509

Instituted on:    03.10.2017

                                                                        Decided on:      19.03.2018

 

Harjinder Kaur aged about 40 years wife of Late Parkash Singh, resident of Village Khanpur, Tehsil Malerkotla, District Sangrur.

                                                          …. Complainant

       

                                         Versus

 

1.     The Sangrur Central Co-operative Bank Ltd. Branch Office : Patiala Gate, Sangrur through its District Manager.

2.     The Khanpur CASS Limited Society, Village Khanpur, Tehsil Malerkotla, District Sangrur through its Secretary.

3.     Liberty Videocon General Insurance Company Limited, 10^th Floor, Tower A, Peninsula Business Park, Ganpatrao Kadam Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai through its Managing Director.                    

                                                        ….Opposite parties.

 

 

FOR THE COMPLAINANT  : Shri Ramandeep Singh, Advocate                          

FOR OPP. PARTY No.1         :  Shri G.S.Sibia,  Advocate                    

FOR OPP. PARTY No.3         :  Shri Bhushan Garg, Advocate.

FOR OPP. PARTY NO.2                 :  Exparte.                    

 

Quorum

         

                   Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

Sarita Garg, Member            

                 

ORDER BY:     

 

Sukhpal Singh Gill, President.

 

1.             Smt. Harjinder Kaur, complainant (referred to as complainant in short) has preferred the present complaint against the opposite parties (referred to as OPs in short) on the ground that her husband, namely, Shri Parkash Singh was the member of the society, OP number 2, and was having account number 805, as such he was insured for Rs.1,00,000/- under saving bank account with the OP number 1 and further insured for personal accident for Rs.50,000/- under Kissan Credit Card with the OP number 2 and the complainant was the nominee under the policy in question. Further case of the complainant is that Shri Parkash Singh (referred to as DLA in short) died in an accident on 9.2.2014 as he fell down from the terrace of the house and sustained multiple injuries.  It is further averred that the postmortem on the body of the DLA was also conducted at Civil Hospital, Malerkotla and DDR number 39 dated 10.2.2014 was also recorded at PS City I Malerkotla.  Further case of the complainant is that after that the claim was lodged with the Ops and the OP number 3 sent a letter on 7.9.2015, whereby the OP number 3 demanded several documents, but the claim of the complainant was repudiated despite submitting all the documents to the Ops. Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of OPs, the complainant has prayed that the OPs be directed to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- as claim amount under the policy along with interest and further claimed compensation for mental agony, harassment and litigation expenses.

 

2.             In reply filed by OP No.1, preliminary objections are taken up on the grounds that the complainant has unnecessary dragged the OP into unwanted litigation, that the complainant has got no locus tandi to file the present complaint and that the complainant has not come to the Forum with clean hands.  On merits, it is admitted that the complainant lodged the claim with it and the OP number 1 forwarded the documents to the OP number 3 for release of the claim. The remaining allegations leveled in the complaint have been  denied in toto.

 

3.             In reply filed by OP No.3,  it is stated that the accident occurred on 09.12.2014 and the present complaint has been filed on 3.10.2017, thus the claim is said to be barred by limitation, that the complaint is false, frivolous and vexatious in nature and that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP.  On merits, it is admitted that the OP issued group personal accident insurance policy number 4112-200201-13-5000006-00-000 for the period from 1.6.2013 to 31.5.2014 thereby covering risk of saving bank account holders of the Sangrur Central Cooperative Bank Ltd for CSI for Rs.1,00,000/- per person subject to the terms and conditions.  The claim was received on 14.7.2015 by the Sangrur Central Cooperative Bank Ltd Jalandhar branch and some documents were also submitted, but it is stated that the claim has been lodged after the delay of almost 18 months whereas as per general terms and conditions, the claim should be lodged with the Op company within 15 days after an actual date and time of accident.  It is further averred that the complainant did not submit the documents even the Ops sent letters dated 28.7.2015, 7.9.2015 and 9.12.2015 for submission of duly signed claim form, copy of bank passbook, indemnity bond/succession certificate and other documents.  As such, the claim of the complainant was repudiated vide letter dated 26.7.2016.  The other allegations leveled in the complaint have been denied.

 

4.             Record shows that the OP number 2 was proceeded against exparte.

 

5.             The learned counsel for the complainant has tendered Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-10 copies of documents and affidavit and closed evidence. On the other hand, the learned counsel for OP number 1 has produced Ex.OP1/1 to Ex.OP1/3 copies of documents etc. and closed evidence. The learned counsel for OP number 3  has produced Ex.Op3/1  to Ex.OP3/10 copies of documents and affidavit and closed evidence.

 

6.             We have very carefully perused the complaint, written reply, as well as evidence produced on the file and heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties. In our opinion, the complaint deserves dismissal, for these reasons.

 

7.             It is an admitted fact that the DLA was insured under the policy in question for Rs.1,00,000/- in case of accidental death with the OP number 3 through the OP number 1.  It is further an admitted fact that the DLA died in an accidental death on 09.02.2014, as is evident from the copy of the post mortem report, Ex.C-7 and the copy of DDR dated 10.02.2014, Ex.C-8 on record.   But, the grievance of the complainant is that the OP number 3 has repudiated the rightful claim of the complainant wrongly on the ground that the claim was not submitted in time.  On the other hand, the stand of the OP number 3 is that the complainant lodged the claim with the OP number 3 on 14.7.2015, whereas the DLA died an accidental death on 09.02.2014 i.e. after a period of about 18 months of the occurrence. The learned counsel for the Ops has further contended vehemently that as per the clause number 10 of the general terms and conditions of the policy, the claim should have been lodged within a period of 15 days of the actual date of accident and further to complete claim forms and written evidence within the period of thirty days of such accident.  But, in the present case, it is not the case of the complainant that she ever intimated the Ops about the claim within the stipulated period as per the policy terms and conditions.  Moreover, there is nothing mentioned in the complaint that on what specific date the claim was lodged with the Ops.    The complainant has not produced even a single document on record to show that she ever approached the OPs about the accidental death of the DLA.  Further we have perused the copy of repudiation letter dated 31.12.2015, wherein it has been clearly  that the DLA has failed to submit the material documents/information within stipulated time inspite of sending reminders to that effect, the claim of the complainant was closed/repudiated, which itself shows that it is a clear cut violation of the general terms and conditions of the insurance policy, wherein it is clearly mentioned that the company be intimated within 15 days after an actual date and time of accident, but in the present case, no such compliance of the terms and conditions of the policy as mentioned above has been made.   As such, we are unable to find any deficiency in service on the part of the Ops in repudiating the claim of the complainant.

 

8.             In view of the above discussion, we dismiss the complaint of the complainant. However, the parties are left to bear their own costs. A copy of the order be supplied to the parties free of charge. File be consigned to records in due course.   

Pronounced.

 

                March 19, 2018.

 

 

 

                                                (Sukhpal Singh Gill)                                                                                                                                      

                                                                President

 

 

                                                             

                                                             (Sarita Garg)

                                                                  Member