Punjab

Sangrur

CC/1118/2015

Sukhwinder Kaur - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

Shri G.S.Shergill

28 Jun 2016

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR

                            

                                                                       Complaint No. 1118

Instituted on:    21.09.2015

                                                                        Decided on:      28.06.2016

 

Sukhwinder Kaur aged about 39 years wife of Late Inderjit Singh, resident of Near Police Station, Kakra Road, Bhawanigarh, Tehsil and District Sangrur.      

                                                          …. Complainant     

 

                                         Versus

 

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

2.     Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Branch Office: Nabha Gate, Sangrur through its Branch Manager.

                                                        ….Opposite parties.

 

FOR THE COMPLAINANT:  Shri G.S.Shergill, Advocate                          

FOR OPP. PARTY No.1         :  Shri Jagtar Singh,  Advocate                    

FOR OPP. PARTY No.2         :  Shri Bhushan Garg, Advocate                    

 

Quorum

         

                       Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

K.C.Sharma, Member

Sarita Garg, Member

                 

ORDER BY:     

Sukhpal Singh Gill, President.

 

1.             Smt. Sukhwinder 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 the husband of the complainant namely, Shri Inderjit Singh (referred to as DLA in short) was having a saving bank account number 1453 with OP number 1 and as such, the DLA was having the Kisan Credit Card. It is further averred that the DLA was insured for Rs.1,00,000/- under saving bank account and for Rs.50,000/- under KCC  and the complainant was the nominee under the policy. It is further averred that in the morning of 19.3.2010, the DLA went to irrigate the fields and when he tried to start the electric motor, then he got the massive electric shock and died on the spot an accidental death.  The DLA was also taken to Khosla Hospital Bhawanigarh for treatment, but the doctor declared the DLA brought dead, as such the DLA was cremated on the same day without conducting any postmortem on the body of the DLA.  However, DDR number 22 dated 26.3.2010 was lodged at PS Bhawanigarh. It is stated that the DLA died an accidental death, as such,  the complainant lodged the claim with the Ops.  It is further averred that the complainant also lodged the claim under saving bank account with the United India Insurance Company Limited, who repudiated the claim vide letter dated 27.3.2011 and the OP number 2 did not pay the claim under the KCC scheme. It is further averred that the complainant also filed a complaint before the Forum, which was dismissed vide order dated 24.8.2012 and thereafter the complainant filed appeal number 1305 of 2012 before the Hon’ble Commission, Punjab, which was partly allotted vide order dated 9.1.2015 whereby the complainant was directed to lodge the claim with the OP number 2 regarding the insurance amount of Rs.50,000/- against the KCC scheme and direction was given to OP number 2 to consider and decide the same as per the terms and conditions of the policy. Thereafter the complainant immediately lodged the claim with the OP number 2 and sent all the documents vide registered letter dated 16.2.2015, but despite that the claim was not decided by the OP number 2. 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.50,000/- as claim amount under the KCC scheme along with interest @ 24% per annum from the date of death till realization and further claimed compensation for mental agony, harassment and litigation expenses.

 

2.             In reply filed by the OP No.1, legal objections are taken up on the grounds that the complainant has dragged the OP into uncalled litigation and that the complainant has no locus standi to file the present complaint. On merits, it is admitted that the DLA was insured under the policy. The remaining allegations have been denied on the ground that no postmortem of the deceased was conducted and there is delay in lodging the DDR.  It is denied that the complainant ever visited the OP and as such, any deficiency in service on the part of the OP has been denied.  It is stated that if any claim is payable, then the same is payable by OP number 2.

 

3.             In reply filed by OP No.2,  legal objections are taken up on the grounds that there is no privity of contract between the complainant and the OP as the insurance policy was taken by OP number 1 and that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP.  It is stated that since the complainant did not lodge the claim with the Op, as such, the complaint was dismissed earlier vide order dated 24.8.2012. Aggrieved with the order of the Forum, the complainant filed an appeal before the Hon’ble Commission which was partly allowed on 9.1.2015 and the complainant was allowed to lodge the claim with the OP number 2 and OP number 2 was directed to decide the claim as per the terms and conditions.   The complainant lodged the claim with the OP vide registered post letter dated 16.2.2015. It is stated that the claim of the complainant was passed for Rs.50,000/- under KCC and the complainant was asked to provide his bank details, so that the amount could be transferred in her account, but the complainant failed to supply the information as sought for.  It has been stated further that the OP number 2 is ready to pay the amount of Rs.50,000/- to the complainant. However, any deficiency in service on the part of the Op has been denied.

 

4.             The complainant has produced Ex.C-1 copy of letter, Ex.C-2 copy of passbook, Ex.C-3 medical record dated 19.3.2010, Ex.C-4 copy of death certificate, Ex.C-5 copy of order dated 9.1.2015, Ex.C-6 affidavit, Ex.C-7 postal receipt, Ex.C-8 copy of DDR dated 26.3.2010 and closed evidence. On the other hand, the learned counsel for OP number 1 has produced Ex.OP1/1 affidavit and closed evidence. The learned counsel for the OP number 2 has produced Ex.OP2/1 affidavit, Ex.OP2/2 copy of letter dated 14.10.2015, Ex.Op2/3 copy of letter dated 6.1.2016, Ex.OP2/4 copy of postal receipt, Ex.OP2/5 copy of cheque for Rs.50,000/- dated 18.1.2016 and closed evidence.

 

5.             We have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents produced on the file and are of the opinion that the complaint merits acceptance, for these reasons.

 

6.             After carefully hearing the arguments and perusing of  the file, we find that the present complaint is outcome of the order of the Hon’ble State Commission Punjab in which “the appeal of the complainant is partly allowed and the complainant has been directed to lodge the claim with the OP number 2 through OP number 1 regarding the insurance claim of Rs.50,000/- against the KCC scheme and OP number 2 will consider and decide the same as per the terms and conditions of the policy.”

 

7.             So, as per the direction of the Hon’ble State Commission, the complainant had lodged the claim on 16.2.2015 with the OP number 2. It was during the proceedings that the counsel for OP number 2 had handed over the cheque of Rs.50,000/- on 19.1.2016 to the counsel for the complainant. The cheque of Rs.50,000/- was handed over to the learned counsel for the complainant before this forum after an inordinate delay of 11 months. Thereafter the counsel for the parties tendered their respective evidence and the main point of controversy in this complaint is whether the complainant is entitled for the compensation or not from the Ops.

 

8.             The learned counsel for OP number 2 has argued vehemently that since the amount of the claim i.e. Rs.50,000/- has been paid to the complainant, so now the complainant is not entitled for any compensation.  But, the facts of the present complaint are totally different than the arguments put forth by the learned counsel for OP number 2.  In the present complaint, the DLA ha died on 19.3.2010 and since then the legal heir i.e. the complainant (nominee) had been struggling for her rightful claim and it was only on 19.1.2016 that the OP number 2 thought it proper to make the payment of the claim.  The complainant had to move from one Forum to another for the redressal of her grievances and had to pass through mental tension and agony, besides some litigation expenses.  It is worth mentioning here that inspite of direction of the Hon’ble State Commission, the OP number 2 had been delaying the settlement of the claim.  There is no explanation from the side of the Ops that why they took such a long time for settling the claim.  Whereas the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India had held in the Civil Appeal No.6075-76 and 11443-44 of 1995 etc. in the case United India Insurance Co. Ltd. versus MKJ Corporation that a reasonable time of two months would be justified for insurance company to take decision from the date of submission of the report of surveyor, whereas the claim requires to be settled or rejected. Further reliance can be placed on the citation of the Hon’ble National Commission pronounced in National Insurance Company Limited versus Kulwant Singh IV(2014) CPJ 62 (NC), wherein it has been clearly stated that the insurance company should not have repudiated the claim merely on account of delay, particularly when there was absolutely no delay in lodging FIR with the police.          

 

9.             In the light of above legal position and circumstances of the case, we feel that it is a clear cut case of deficiency in service on the part of the OP number 2 and as such, the OP number 2 is directed to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.20,000/- in lieu of compensation for mental tension, agony and harassment and further an amount of Rs.5000/- on account of 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.     

Pronounced.

 

                June 28, 2016.

 

                                                (Sukhpal Singh Gill)                                                                                                                                      

                                                                President

 

 

                                                             (K.C.Sharma)

                                                                 Member

 

 

                                                             (Sarita Garg)

                                                                  Member