Punjab

Sangrur

CC/165/2015

Sukhwinder Kaur - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

Shri S.S.Ratol

24 Aug 2015

ORDER

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR

         

                  

                                                                    Complaint no. 165

                                                                   Instituted on:   25.03.2015

                                                                   Decided on:     24.08.2015

 

Sukhwinder Kaur aged 32 years wife of Late Gurdeep Singh resident of Village Meemsa, Tehsil Dhuri, District Sangrur.

                                                          …. Complainant.    

 

                                         Versus

 

1.     The Sangrur Central Co-operative Bank Limited, Sangrur through its District Manager.

2.     The Sangrur Central Co-operative Bank Limited, Dhuri through its Branch Manager.

3.     The Meemsa Multipurpose Primary Cooperative  Agriculture Service Society Limited, Branch Meemsa, Tehsil Dhuri, District Sangrur through its Secretary.

4.     Bharti AXA Insurance Company Limited, Pearl Plaza K-24, Plot No.ABCD & E, 2^nd Floor, Sector 18, Noida-201301 through its Managing Director.                                                                                           ….Opposite parties.

 

 

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

 

FOR OPP. PARTIES No.1&2 : Shri Gagandeep Sibia,  Advocate                    

 

FOR OPP. PARTY No.3     :    Shri Inderjit Ausht, Advocate                    

 

FOR OPP. PARTY No.4     :    Shri G.S.Shergill, Advocate                    

 

 

Quorum

         

                   Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

K.C.Sharma, Member

Sarita Garg, Member

                 

 

 

ORDER:  

 

K.C.Sharma, Member

 

1.             Sukhwinder Kaur, complainant has preferred the present complaint against the opposite parties (referred to as OPs in short) on the ground that being the member of the OP No.3 under Kisan Credit Card No.2/1085, the husband of the complainant insured with OP No.4 for Rs.50,000/-.  On  01.09.2013, husband of the complainant and Surinder Pal started to cover the animal ( loaded in the truck) with plastic sheet cover then suddenly both of them got electric current from the 11000 KVA Volts line which was crossing over the vehicle and they received multiple grievous injuries  and were taken to Civil Hospital, Samrala but the doctors declared him brought dead. DDR no.11 dated 01.09.2013 was lodged. The claim was lodged with Ops No.2&3 which was further forwarded  to OP no.1 who further forwarded the same to OP no.4 but the Ops failed to release the claim amount to the complainant. 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.50,000/- as claim amount along with interest @18% per annum from the date of death of insured till payment,  

ii)     OPs be directed to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.25000/- 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 and locus standi have been taken up. It is admitted that the claim regarding death of Gurdeep Singh was lodged by the complainant which was forwarded to OP No.4 vide letter dated 26.10.2013. It is further submitted that liability to pay any claim amount, if any, is of the OP No.4. Thus, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OPs No.1&2.

3.             In reply filed by the OP No.3, legal objections on the grounds of maintainability, suppression of material facts and cause of action have been taken up. It is submitted that the documents were submitted in the office of OP and same was forwarded to the OP No.2. It is correct that Gurdeep Singh was insured with the OP No.4. The claim is required to be settled  by OP No.4.  Thus, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP no.3.

4.             In reply filed by OP No.4, preliminary objections on the ground of maintainability has been taken up. It is submitted that no claim was lodged with the OP No.4  and as such there is no occasion for the OP no.4 to verify the genuineness of the claim of the complainant. On merits, it is denied that Gurdeep Singh was insured under cooperative bank personal accident policy. The insurance, if any then the same is subject to terms and conditions of the policy as well as the proof regarding deduction of payment of premium.

5.             The complainant has tendered documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-6 and closed evidence. On the other hand, OPs have tendered documents Ex.OPs1&2/1 to Ex.OPs1&2/5, and Ex.OP3/1 to Ex.OP3/3 and Ex.OP4/1 to Ex.OP4/2 and closed evidence.

6.             It is not disputed by the OPs No.1 to 3 that husband  of the complainant, Gurdeep Singh was insured for Rs.50,000/- with the OP No.4 through Ops No.1 to 3 as he was having an account with them. But, the insurance company i.e. OP No.4  has totally denied that  the claim regarding the death of Gurdeep Singh was ever lodged, as such there is no occasion for OP no.4 to verify the genuineness of the claim of the complainant. So, there is a violation of policy condition 11 ( a) .

7.             From the perusal of entire file, we find the Ops No.1 and 2 have produced copy of registered letter dated 26.10.2013  addressed to the Regional Manager, Bharti Axa General Insurance Company Limited, Ludhiana Ex.Ops1&2/1 wherein it was mentioned that with this letter death claim  case of Gurdeep Singh son of Nahar Singh under Kissan Credit card personal accident group insurance covered under policy no. APG/11029455/P3/09/D5P314 with relevant documents has been sent with request to settle the same at the earliest. Copies of the postal receipt regarding sending the said letter Ex.Ops 1&2/2 and dispatch register Ex.Ops1&2/3 have also been produced by the Ops No.1&2. Copy of another letter dated 25.02.2014 which was sent by the Ops No.1&2 to the Regional Manager,Bharti Axa General Insurance Company Limited Ludhiana requiring information/ status of the claim  cases of the insured persons including the deceased Gurdeep Singh has also been produced.  Moreover, OP No.3 has also produced on record copy of passbook  of Gurdeep Singh deceased  which is Ex.OP3/1 on record.  Another document which is list of card holders has been produced on record as Ex.OP3/2 wherein the name of Gurdeep Singh deceased has been mentioned at serial number 441. All this show that the claim was duly lodged with relevant documents to the OP No.4 through Ops No.1 to 3 and  OP No.4 intentionally/ deliberately denied that the claim was not lodged with it so as  to escape from  its liability to pay the rightful and genuine claim of the  husband of the complainant.

8.             From the above facts, we find that claim of the complainant was lodged with OP no.4 through Ops No.1 to 3 on 26.10.2013 but the same was not settled by it till today.  It is settled  law that the claim should be decided by the insurance company  within two months from the date of lodging of the same. In the instant case, the claim was not decided/settled by the OP No.4 after the elapse of more than one and half year which we feel is sufficient/ reasonable time for the purpose.   

9.             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 her 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.

10.           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.50,000/- 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.

11.           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 24, 2015

 

 

 

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

             Member                Member               President

 

BBS/-