Punjab

Sangrur

CC/410/2016

Harbans Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Sangrur Central Cooperative Bank Limited - Opp.Party(s)

Shri J.S.Maudgill

22 Nov 2016

ORDER

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR

                  

 

                                                                  Complaint no. 410                                                                                         

                                                                  Instituted on:   01.06.2016                            

                                                                Decided on:    22.11.2016

 

1. Harbans Singh aged about 33years son of Late sh. AjaibSingh.
2. Bhoora Singh  aged about  31 years son of Late Sh. Ajaib Singh. Both are residents of  Village & Post Office Baghrol, Tehsil Sunam District Sangrur.
3. Balwinder Kaur @ Maninder Kaur wife of Sh. Dalbir Singh daughter of Late Sh. Ajaib Singh, resident of village  Bahmna, Tehsil Samana District Patiala. 
                                               …. Complainants

                                Versus

 

 

1. The Sangrur Central Cooperative Bank Limited Patiala Gate, Sangrur 148001 through its Bank Manager.
2. The Sangrur Central Cooperative Bank Limited Branch VPO Kamalpur, Tehsil Sunam District Sangrur through its Branch Manager.
3. Bharti AXA General Insurance Company Limited Office of Pearl Plaza, K-24, Plot No. ABCD, 2nd Floor, Sector 18, Noida through its Managing Director/ Authorized  Signatory.  

                                              ….Opposite parties.

 

 

 

 

FOR THE COMPLAINANT   :                   Shri J.S.Moudgil,  Advocate.                      

 

FOR OPP. PARTIES No.1&2    :     Ms. Rajni Gandhi, Advocate.

 

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

 

 

Quorum

         

                    Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

Sarita Garg, Member

 

 

ORDER:  

 

Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

 

1.             Harbans Singh, Bhoora Singh and Balwinder Kaur complainants have preferred the present complaint against the opposite parties (referred to as OPs in short) on the ground that they are remaining legal heirs of deceased Ajaib Singh.  Being the account holder of OPs no.1 and 2, Ajaib Singh was insured with OP no.3  for Rs. One Lac. On 05/01/2015, said Ajaib Singh died due to  an accident of which FIR no.07 dated 08/01/2015 was registered. After his death, claim was lodged after completing all the formalities but OP no.3  has wrongly repudiated the insurance claim vide letter dated  11/09/2015 without assigning any reason.    Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of OPs, the complainant has sought following reliefs:-

 

i)      OPs be directed to pay an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- along with interest @24% per annum,

ii)     OPs be directed to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.50000/- as compensation   on account of mental agony, harassment,

iii)   OPs be directed to pay Rs.7000/- as litigation expenses.

2.             In reply filed by the Ops no.1 and 2, legal objection on the ground of concealment of material fact has been taken.  On merit,  it is submitted that the OPs no.1&2 have not any concern with OP no.3 to cancel/ repudiate the claim of the complainant.  It is denied that  the OPs no.1&2 have no connivance with the OP no.3.

3.             In reply filed by the OP no.3, it is submitted that the policy in question was valid for the period from 01.06.2014 to 31.05.2015 and as such at the time of issuance of the policy, no premium was received in advance under the account of deceased, therefore the claim of the complainant is not admissible. In the present case the intimation was given after the gap of 77 days which is clear cut violation of terms and conditions of the policy.  After getting the information,  claim number was allotted  and the complainant  was required to explain the delay of lodging the claim but he did not give any explanation regarding delay  Later on the documents submitted by the complainant as well as the OPs no.1&2, it found that the premium from the account of deceased was deducted on 29.05.2015 after the death of deceased. The complainant and OPs no.1&2 failed to supply any document regarding the deduction of premium before the issuance of policy.  As such the claim  has been rightly repudiated.

4.             The complainant in his evidence has tendered documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-12 and closed evidence. On the other hand, OPs have tendered documents  Ex.OPs.1&2/1, Ex.OPs.1&2/2, Ex.OP.3/1  to Ex.OP3/4 and closed evidence.

5.             After perusal of the documents placed on record and hearing the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties, we find that the OP no.3 had repudiated the claim on the ground that premium was paid after the issuance of the policy, therefore the claim is not admissible as per policy terms and conditions. In the repudiation letter dated 11/09/2015 Ex.C-3 the OP no.3 has mentioned that "  As per the 64 VB of Insurance act of 1938 which says" No Risk to be assumed  unless premium is received in advance".  On the other hand, complainants  have stated that the premium was duly deducted by the OPs no.1&2 from the account of deceased Ajaib Singh on 29.05.2014 and 29.05.2015.

6.             Further, from the perusal of copy of passbook  of Late Ajaib Singh Ex.C-2, we find that an entry regarding the deduction of premium of Rs.40/- was made on 29.05.2014. Further, the OPs no.1 and 2 in their evidence have produced copy of statement of account of Late Ajaib Singh Ex. OPs.1&2/2 wherein it has been clearly recorded two entries regarding deduction of premium of Rs.40/- two times i.e. on 29.05.2014 and  29.05.2015.  Moreover, the OP no.3 in its reply has also stated that intimation regarding death was given  after the gap of  77 days.   We feel that the OP no.3 cannot take the benefit of the ground of delay intimation as per IRDA guidelines the OP no.3 cannot take ground of delay intimation  as ground of repudiation of claim.    

7.             In view of the above discussion, we  feel that since the premium amount  was deducted from the account of deceased Ajaib Singh for the period in which he died then  OP no.3 is liable to pay the insurance claim amount to the complainants. Accordingly we allow the complaint of the complainant and direct the OP no.3 to pay an amount of Rs.1,00,000/-  ( One Lac )  being claim amount along with interest @9% per annum from the date of filing of the complaint till realization. We further order the OP no.3 to pay to the complainants an amount of Rs.10,000/- being compensation on account of mental pain agony and  Rs.5000/- as litigation expenses.

8.             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

                November 22, 2016

 

 

 

      ( Sarita Garg)                                    (Sukhpal Singh Gill)                                                                                                                                                                                                  Member                                            President