Punjab

Sangrur

CC/210/2018

Bhuro - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

Sh.R.K.Singla

28 Nov 2018

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR.

                                                               

 

                                                Complaint No.    210

                                                Instituted on:      01.05.2018

                                                Decided on:       28.11.2018

 

 

Bhuro widow of Suleman Khan R/O Village Jharon, Tehsil Sunam, District Sangrur.

                                                        ..Complainant

                                        Versus

1.             The Sangrur Central Co-operative Bank Limited, BO Village Cheema, Tehsil Sunam, District Sangrur through its Branch Manager.

2.             The Sangrur Central Co-op Bank Limited, Patiala Gate, Sangrur through its District Manager.

3.             Bharti AXA General Insurance Company Limited, 2^nd Floor, Eminent Mall, Guru Nanak Mission Chowk, Jalandhar through its Divisional Manager.

                                                        ..Opposite parties

 

For the complainant    :       Shri R.K.Singla, Advocate.

For OPs No.1&2        :       Shri Dhiraj Jindal, Advocate.

For OP No.3              :       Shri Udit Goyal, Advocate

 

 

Quorum:    Inderjit Kaur, Presiding Member

                Vinod Kumar Gulati, Member

 

 

Order by : Inderjit Kaur &Vinod Kumar Gulati.

1.             Smt. Bhuro, 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 husband of the complainant namely Suleman Khan became a member of the Ops by opening a saving bank account number 1227 (181234028001095) by depositing Rs.1100/- in his account and against which  the Ops number 1 and 2 got the member insured for Rs.1,00,000/- from Op number 3 under policy number APG/11637787/ P3/05/D5P31C and the complainant was nominee under the policy.  The case of the complainant is that on 11.6.2014, Suleman Khan when was coming to Sunam from his village on Mule-cart, then he suddenly mule got frightened and came in the middle of road and a car coming from Cheema side hit the cart of the deceased and due to which he fell down on the road and died at the spot and the post-mortem on the dead body of the deceased was also conducted on 11.6.2014 at Civil Hospital Sunam.  DDR number 9 dated 11.6.2014 was also got registered at PS City Sunam.  Thereafter the complainant lodged the claim with the Op number 1 and submitted necessary documents.  Further case of the complainant is that an amount of Rs.50,000/- was credited in her account on 5.1.2015 instead of Rs.1,00,000/-, which is said to be deficiency in service on the part of the Ops.  Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the OPs, the complainant has prayed that the OPs be directed to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.50,000/- along with interest @ 18% per annum and further claimed compensation and litigation expenses.

 

2.             In reply filed by the OPs number 1 and 2, legal objections are taken up on the grounds that the complainant is not maintainable being time barred as the amount of the claim was credited in her account on 5.1.2015, that the complainant has concealed the material and true facts, that the complainant has no cause of action to file the present complaint and that there is no deficiency in service at all on the part of the OPs. On merits, it is admitted that husband of the complainant had opened an account and became a member of the scheme by depositing Rs.1100/- under the policy. It is also admitted that the husband of the complainant died and intimation of which was also received.  It is stated that the amount of the claim of Rs.50,000/- has already been credited in account of the complainant on 5.1.2015.  It is stated further that the bank also wrote letter to the OP number 3 for payment and sent an email also. 

 

3.             In reply filed by Op number 3, preliminary objections are taken up on the grounds that the complaint is not maintainable as the deceased was not covered under the policy as the premium was not paid before the issuance of the policy on 1.6.2014. It is stated further that the present complaint is hopelessly time barred as the deceased died on 11.6.2014 and payment was made on 5.1.2015 and the present complaint has been filed on 1.5.2018 after the passing of more than three years and four months of receipt of payment. On merits, it is stated that the policy in question was issued for the period from 1.6.2014 to 31.5.2015, whereas the premium was paid on 16.6.2014 i.e. after the death and after the issuance of the insurance policy. It is also admitted that Op number 2 took personal group accident insurance policy bearing number 11637787 for its saving bank account holders having sum insured for Rs.1,00,000/- for unnamed 69,433 account holders.  It is stated that since the claim was not admissible under the policy, however taking a lenient view, the Ops on humanitarian ground released the amount of Rs.50,000/- to the complainant on 5.1.2015.  There is no deficiency in service on the part of the Ops.

 

4.             The learned counsel for the complainant has produced Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-7 documents and affidavit and closed evidence. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the OPs number 1&2 has produced Ex.OP-1&2/1 to Ex.OP-1&2/5 copies of documents and affidavit and closed evidence. The learned counsel for OP number 3 has produced Ex.OP3/1 to Ex.OP3/6 copies of documents and affidavit and closed evidence. 

 

5.             We have carefully perused the pleadings of the parties and heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties. In our opinion, the complaint merits acceptance, for these reasons.

 

6.             At the outset, it is an admitted fact between the parties that the husband of the complainant Shri Suleman Khan was insured with the OP number 3 under the policy number APG/11637787/P3/05/D5P31C for Rs.1,00,000/- in case of his accidental death.  It is also not in dispute that the amount of Rs.50,000/- has already been paid to the complainant on 5.1.2015, but the remaining amount of Rs.50,000/- was not paid to the complainant despite her best efforts.  Further a bare perusal of the written reply filed by OP number 3 clearly reveals that the OP number 3 by taking the lenient view only on humanitarian ground released the amount of Rs.50,000/- to the complainant on 5.1.2015, but the fact remains that the OP number 3 has no right to withheld the remaining amount of Rs.50,000/- of the complainant as the deceased Suleman Khan was insured for Rs.1,00,000/- only.  Under the circumstances, we feel that the complainant is entitled to get an amount of Rs.50,000/- from the OP number 3.

 

7.             In view of our above discussion, we allow the complaint and direct OP number 3 to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.50,000/- along with interest @ 9% per annum from 5.1.2015 till realisation. We further direct OP number 3 to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.5000/- on account of compensation for mental tension, agony and harassment and litigation expenses.  This order of ours be complied with within a period of thirty days of its receipt of the copy of this order. A copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to records.

                        Pronounced.

                        November 28, 2018.                                   

                                                                (Inderjit Kaur)

                                                            Presiding  Member

 

 

 

                                                          (Vinod Kumar Gulati)

                                                                    Member