DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR.

                                                Complaint No.  39

                                                Instituted on:    30.01.2017

                                                Decided on:       16.05.2017

Raj Kaur aged about 43 years wife of late Shri Jagjit Singh alias Jag Singh alias Jagga Singh, resident of Patti Vichlawas, Village Badrukhan, Tehsil and Distt. Sangrur.

                                                        …Complainant

                                Versus

1.     The Sangrur Central Cooperative Bank Limited, Branch Office Mastuana Sahib, Tehsil and Distt. Sangrur through its District Manager.

2.     The Badrukhan CASS Limited, Branch Badrukhan, Tehsil and Distt. Sangrur through its Secretary.

3.     The New India Assurance Company Limited, Divisional office: College Road, Sangrur through its Divisional Manager.

                                                        ..Opposite parties.

For the complainant  :       Shri G.P.Sharma, Adv.

For Opp.party No.1  :       Shri Ashish Grover, Adv.

For Opp.party No.2  :       Shri Jarnail Singh,

For Opp.party No.3  :       Shri Ashish Garg, Adv.

Quorum:   Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

                Sarita Garg, Member

                Vinod Kumar Gulati, Member

Order by : Sukhpal Singh Gill, President.

1.             Smt. Raj 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 husband of the complainant, namely, Jagjit Singh alias Jag alias Jagga was having a Kissan Credit Card bearing account number 56 with the Ops number 1 and 2 and under the said card he was insured under cooperative bank personal accident insurance scheme for an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- with the Op number 3 and the complainant is the nominee under the policy.  Further case of the complainant is that on 4.10.2015 husband of the complainant namely Jagjit Singh was going to Mastuana Sahib on scooter bearing registration number PB-13-F-9235 which was being driven by the husband of the complainant was hit by a Canter bearing registration number HR-58-A-5691, resulting which he sustained multiple injuries on his person and as such was taken to Civil Hospital, Sangrur, where he succumbed to injuries, of which DDR number 12 dated 4.10.2015 was recorded at PP Badrukhan.  Therafter  the complainant lodged the claim with the Ops of the death of Jagjit Singh (referred to as DLA in short) but the Op number 3 repudiated the claim of the complainant vide letter dated 14.3.2016 on the ground that the insured was Jag Singh, whereas the documents have been sent relating to Jagjit Singh.  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 the insurance claim of Rs.1,00,000/-  along with interest @ 18% per annum from the date of death of Jagjit Singh till realisation and further claimed compensation and litigation expenses.

2.             In reply of the complaint filed by Ops number 1 and 2, legal objections are taken up on the grounds that the complaint is not maintainable and that the complainant has got no locus standi to file the present complaint. On merits, it is averred that account number 56 is in the name of Jag Singh son of Bhan Singh and the insurance amount under the KCC account is Rs.50,000/-. It is stated further that on 19.2.2016 the complainant filed an application along with affidavit that Jag Singh and Jagjit Singh was one and the same person and as such, the Ops number 1 and 2 sent the documents to the Op number 3, but OP number 3 repudiated the claim of the complainant. The other allegations levelled in the complaint have been denied in toto.

3.             In reply filed by Op number 3, legal objections are taken up on the grounds that the complainant has no cause of action to file the present complaint, that there are complicated questions of law and facts involved in the present case, that the complainant is not a consumer of the OPs.  On merits, it has been stated that at the request of the OP number 1, Nabha Branch of OP number 3 issued a Group Janta Personal Accident Insurance policy w.e.f. 29.9.2015 to 28.9.2016 regarding its account holders only and the sum insured under the policy was Rs.50,000/- only for accidental death.  It is further averred that after receipt of the intimation dated 3.3.2016 regarding the death of Shri Jagjit Singh on 4.10.2015, Shri Manjit Singh Kohli was appointed investigator for investigation of the claim, who in his report dated 13.3.2016 opined that as per record the beneficiary/insured is Jag Singh son of Bhan Singh, but in the DDR, police papers, post-mortem report and death certificate the name is shown as Jagjit Singh son of Bhan Singh and thus recommended for no claim. It is further averred that the nominee under the policy is brother of Jag Singh, namely, Jogga Singh. As such, it is stated that the file has been closed as no claim.  The other allegations levelled in the complaint have been denied in toto.

4.             The learned counsel for the complainant has produced Ex.C-1 affidavit, Ex.C-2 to Ex.C-6 copies of documents and closed evidence. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the OP number 1 and 2  has produced Ex.OP-1&2/1 to Ex.OP1&2/8 affidavit and documents and closed evidence. The learned counsel for OP number 3 has produced Ex.OP3/1 to Ex.OP3/12 copies of documents and affidavit and closed evidence.

5.             We have carefully perused the complaint, version of the opposite parties and evidence produced on the file and also heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties. In our opinion, the complaint merits dismissal, for these reasons.

6.             At the outset, the OP number 3 has taken an objection in the written reply that the complaint is not maintainable as the nominee under the policy is one Jogga Singh, brother of the DLA, as is evident from the copy of the list of insured persons and the name of Jag Singh son of Bhan Singh figures at serial number 37, which is not a party in the present complaint case.   The complainant has wrongly mentioned in the complaint that she is the nominee under the policy taken by Shri Jag Singh.  There is no explanation from the side of the complainant that how she is the nominee under the policy, nor, she has produced any such document on record to support this contention.  On the other hand, the OP number 3 has produced on record Ex.OP3/2, the list of insured persons including the name of nominee, wherein it is clear that nominee of Shri Jag Singh is his brother Shri Jagga Singh, as is evident from the list of insured persons Ex.OP3/2.  Under the circumstances, we find that the complaint of the complainant is not maintainable at all.                

7.             In view of our above discussion, we dismiss the complaint of the complainant.   In the circumstances of the case, the parties are left to bear their own costs. However, it is open for the nominee to file the complaint, if he desired so. A copy of this order be issued to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to records.

                        Pronounced.

                        May 16, 2017.

                                                        (Sukhpal Singh Gill)

                                                                President

                                                                (Sarita Garg)

                                                                    Member

                                                        (Vinod Kumar Gulati)

                                                                    Member