Punjab

Sangrur

CC/114/2015

Baljinder Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

Shri S.S.Ratol

18 Aug 2015

ORDER

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR

                            

                                                                    Complaint no. 114

                                                                    Instituted on: 12.03.2015

                                                                     Decided on:    18.08.2015

 

Baljinder Singh aged 23 years son of Gurjant Singh resident of Village Balian, Tehsil & District Sangrur.

                                                          …. Complainant.    

                                         Versus

 

1.     The Sangrur Central Co-operative Bank Limited, Branch Bhindran, Tehsil &  District Sangrur through its Branch Manager. 

2.     The Sangrur Central Co-operative Bank Limited, Head Office, Patiala Gate, Sangrur.

3.     Bharti AXA Insurance Company Limited, Mercantile House 7^th Floor, 15 Kasturba Gandhi Marg, Canaught Place, New Delhi 110001.                                                                                                                   ….Opposite parties.

 

 

FOR THE COMPLAINANT:    Shri S.S.Ratol, Advocate                          

 

FOR OPP. PARTIES No.1&2 : Shri Amit Goyal,  Advocate                    

 

FOR OPP. PARTY No.3     :    Shri G.S.Shergill, Advocate                    

 

 

Quorum

         

                   Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

K.C.Sharma, Member

Sarita Garg, Member

                 

ORDER:  

 

K.C.Sharma, Member

 

1.             Baljinder Singh, complainant has preferred the present complaint against the opposite parties (referred to as OPs in short) on the ground that being the account holder  of OPs No.1&2, father of the complainant insured with OP No.3  The father of the complainant died accidentally on 07.06.2014 when  he was returning on tractor from Sangrur to village Balian, by loading  the pipes and other material  for purpose of installing the tubewell in the fields. The tractor  went out of control and  struck with the chowk.  The tractor- trolly was turn- turlled and driver Gurjant Singh and Mintu Crushed under the pipes.  DDR No.19 dated 08.06.2014 was recorded in P.S.City, Sangrur and post mortem was conducted in Civil Hospital, Sangrur. The complainant submitted all the required documents with OP no.1 which were forwarded to OP no.2 and then to OP No.3. But the OP No.3 repudiated the claim of the complainant on the ground that the deceased was not having driving license. The insurance was for personal accident category and there was no requirement for any driving license. The repudiation letter is wrong and illegal as  alleged condition  is not applicable  to the facts of the present case. Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of OPs, the complainant has sought following reliefs:- 

i)      OPs be directed to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- along with interest from the date of death of insured till payment,  

ii)     OPs be directed to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.30000/- as compensation   on account of mental agony, harassment and pay Rs.11000/- as litigation expenses.

 

2.             In reply filed by the OPs No.1&2, legal objections on the grounds of maintainability, cause of action, suppression of material facts and locus standi have been taken up. It is admitted that the claim regarding death of Gurjant Singh was lodged by the complainant which was immediately forwarded to OP No.3 but OP No.3 repudiated the claim of the complainant vide letter dated 24.12.2014.  It is further submitted that liability to pay any claim amount, if any, is of the OP No.3. Thus, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OPs No.1&2.

3.             In reply filed by OP No.3, preliminary objection on the ground of maintainability has been taken up saying that the complainant  failed to supply the copy of driving license of deceased Gurjant Singh as such there is violation of General Exclusion Clause 8 ( V) of the policy. On merits, it is submitted that after getting the information regarding the accident, the complainant was asked to provide certain documents including the driving licence of deceased Gurjant Singh but he failed to supply the driving licence which shows that the deceased was not holding a valid driving license at the time of accident. Therefore the claim of the complainant was repudiated vide letter dated 24.12.2014 as per terms and conditions of the policy. It is denied that the  driving licence has no concern for releasing the claim amount.    Thus, there is no deficiency in service on the part of OP No.3.

4.             The complainant has tendered documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-8 and closed evidence. On the other hand, OPs have tendered documents Ex.OPs1&2/1 to Ex.OPs1&2/2 and Ex.OP3/1 to Ex.OP3/7 and closed evidence.

5.             It is not disputed by the OPs that father of the complainant, Gurjant Singh was insured with the OP No.3 through Ops No.1 and 2 as he was having an account with them. It is also undisputed on record that Gurjant Singh, DLA died accidentally on 7.6.2014 when he was returning on his tractor  from Sangrur to village Balian. The OPs have not raised any objection regarding  submission of documents and lodging of claim with them for releasing the claim amount meaning thereby the claim was also lodged by the complaiant with them within time.

6.             The only ground which has been taken by the OP No.3 for repudiation of the claim of the complainant  is that the complainant was asked to supply the copy of driving license of  deceased Gurjant singh but he failed to supply the same which is clear cut violation of clause 8 (V)  of the terms and conditions of the policy.

7.             In the  complaint and affidavit of the complainant, it has been specifically mentioned that tractor-trolley  was turn-turtled  and driver Gurjant Singh and Mintu crushed under the pipes and they were taken to Civil Hospital, Sangrur where Gurjant Singh was declared brought dead. Copy of DDR no.19 dated 8.6.2014, copy of statement of Jeet Singh Numberdar  and copy of postmortem report of deceased which are Ex.C-5,Ex.C-6 and Ex.C-7 respectively on record also show the same position about this fact. From the facts of the present case stated above, we find that Gurjant Singh was not at fault in driving the tractor as the tractor trolley was turn-turtled suddenly due to left tyre of the tractor went out of tractor  and tractor was went out of control, which we feel is not due to negligence on the part of Gurjant Singh DLA. So, the demand of driving licence of Gurjant Singh deceased may be immaterial. Same view was expressed by the Hon’ble State Consumer Commission, Punjab  in First Appeal No.1662 of 2014, titled as Bharti Axa General Insurance Company Limited Vs. Parminder Kaur & others decided on 13.01.2015 wherein ruling of the Hon’ble National Commission tilted as  United India Insurance Company Limited Vs. Gaj Pal Singh Rawat, III (2009) CPJ 254 (NC) has been referred. Under the circumstances mentioned  above, we find  that there is no nexus between the licence  of the driver and accident, so the demand of driving licence of deceased Gurjant Singh by insurance company is not justified and as such insurance company i.e. OP No.3 is liable  to pay the claim amount.

8.             So, in view of the above discussion made above, we find that the OP No.3 is not only deficient in service but also indulged in unfair trade practice and has enforced the complainants to seek legal remedy in order to receive their rightful claim which has been supported by cogent evidence. The Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court  in case tilted as New India Assurance Company Limited Vs. Smt. Usha Yadav and others 2008 (3) R.C.R. 9 ( civil) 111 has held that the insurance companies  are in the habit to take these type of projections to save themselves from paying the insurance claim. The Insurance companies are only interested in earning the premiums and find ways and means to decline claims.

8.             Further, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Madras Port Trust Vs. Hymanshu International, (1979) 4 SCC 176 whereby, it deprecated the practice  often adopted by governmental and public authorities, of denying  just claims of citizens  on technical pleas, even though the claim lodged with them was otherwise well founded”. The relevant observations are extracted hereinbelow:-

“ ……2. We do not think that this is a fit case where we should  proceed to determine whether the claim of the respondent was  barred by Section 110 of the Madras Port Trust Act (II of 1905) . The plea  of limitation based on this Section is one which the court always looks upon with disfavour and it is unfortunate that a public authority like the Port Trust should, in all morality and justice, take up such  a plea to defeat  a just claim of the citizen.  It is high time that governments and public authorities adopt the practice of not relying upon technical  pleas for the purpose of defeating legitimate claims of citizens and do what  is fair and just to the citizens”. Here, it is obvious that the claim of the complainant was a just claim supported by the cogent and reliable evidence of the complainant. Moreover, IRDA’s circular dated 20.09.2011, 14.4 clearly  says that the insurer’s decision to reject a claim must be based on “ sound logic” and “ valid grounds”.  

9.             In the light above facts, we allow the complaint against OP No.3 and direct the OP No.3 to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- being insured amount along with interest 9% per annum from the date of filing of complaint till realization. We further order the OP No.3 to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.10000/- on account of mental agony and harassment and also to pay a sum of Rs.5000/- as litigation expenses.

10.           This order of ours shall be complied with within 30 days from the receipt of copy of the order.  Copy of the order be supplied to the parties free of charge. File be consigned to records in due course.       

Announced

                August 18, 2015

 

 

 

( Sarita Garg)       ( K.C.Sharma)       (Sukhpal Singh Gill)                                                                                                                                     

             Member                Member               President

 

BBS/-