Punjab

Patiala

CC/15/7

Karamjit - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Sangrur Coop Bank - Opp.Party(s)

Sh D P S Anand

09 Jun 2015

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

PATIALA.

 

                                      Complaint No. CC/15/07 of 5.1.2015

                                      Decided on:        9.6.2015

 

Karamjit Widow of Late Sh.Rattan Kumar aged 50 years resident of village and post office Gharachon, Tehsil and District Sangrur.

         

 

                                                                   …………...Complainant

                                      Versus

1. The Sangrur Central Cooperative Bank Ltd., Patiala Gate Sangrur through its Manager.
2. Liberty Videocon General Insurance Company Ltd., 10^th Floor, Tower-A, Peninsula, Business Park, Ganpat Rao Kadam Marg, Lower Parel Mumbai through its Manager.

                                                                   …………….Ops

 

                                      Complaint under Section 12 of the

                                      Consumer Protection Act.

 

                                      QUORUM

 

                                      Sh.D.R.Arora, President

                                      Smt.Neelam Gupta, Member

                                      Smt.Sonia Bansal,Member

                                     

                                                                            

Present:

For the complainant:      Sh.D.P.S.Anand , Advocate

For Op No.2:                   Sh.Amit Gupta,Advocate 

                                     

                                         ORDER

D.R.ARORA, PRESIDENT

1. Late Rattan Kumar, the husband of the complainant was maintaining a saving bank account No.139 dated 26.5.2000 with the Central Co-operative Bank Limited, Patiala Gate Sangrur i.e. Op no.1. Op no.1 purchased a personal accident insurance policy No.4112-200201-13-500000-00-000 for all its account holders  covering the risk of Rs.one lac for each in case of accidental death from Op no.2.
2. On 3.5.2014 at about 7AM, deceased Rattan Kumar alongwith his son Kapil Dev had been coming to Patiala from his village Gharachon, on a scooter  to pay obeisance at Kali Mata Mandir and when they reached on the main line Bhakra canal Patiala–Samana Road that Rattan Kumar alighted from the scooter and went to the canal in order to immerse the ashes of the Puja Path samgri but unfortunately his foot   slipped when he was immersing the said material and he had fallen and drowned in the canal. The dead body of the deceased was recovered  near from the village  Chupki on the next day at 8AM.
3. The intimation regarding the incident was lodged with P.S.Pasiana vide DDR No.8 dated 14.5.2014 by Kapil Dev and the police conducted the proceedings under  Section 174 Cr.PC and also got conducted the postmortem on the dead body of the deceased.
4. The claimant lodged the claim with Op no.1, who further submitted the same to Op no.2 with a recommendation to pay the claim amount but  Op no.2 repudiated the claim vide letter dated 29.10.2014, on the ground that the deceased had committed suicide. The complainant has challenged the repudiation of her claim by Op no.2, to be illegal and arbitrary. Although the policy terms and conditions were never supplied to the claimant by Op no.1 or Op no2 but the complainant had completed all the formalities in having supplied the requisite documents as desired by the Ops and she also co-operated with the investigator. The repudiation of the claim by the Ops is said to be a deficiency in service. Accordingly the complainant has brought this complaint against the Ops under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986 ( for short the Act) for a direction to the  Ops to pay him Rs.one lac , the insured amount and further to pay her Rs.25000/- by way of compensation on account of the harassment and the mental agony experienced by her and further to award her Rs.10,000/- towards the costs of the complaint.
5. The cognizance of the complaint was taken against Op no.2 only who on appearance filed the written version. It is admitted by the Op that Op no.1 had obtained  Liberty Videocon Group Personal Accident policy covering its account holders vide Group Personal Accident Policy No.4112-200201-13-500006-00-000.During the currency of the said policy, the Op had received the intimation with regard to the death of the account holder Rattan Kumar,  of Op no.1, on 3.5.2015 due to drowning. The competent authority of the Op had deputed Sh.H.S.Bedi of Bee Vee Investigating Agency for investigation, who submitted his report dated 9.8.2014.It was found by the Investigator that he had visited the Baildar of the Bhakra canal department , who confirmed that no person had raised any alarm with regard to the slipping of any person in the Bhakra canal and it was also observed  by the Investigator that the deceased was wearing an underwear only and the same completely negates the story of the complainant .The Investigator in his report concluded that the death of the deceased was not accidental and  by slipping into the canal but was a suicide. The said fact was also confirmed by the person who had fished out the dead body from the canal. The Investigator in his report concluded : “On the basis of our inquiry made from Sh.Major Singh, resident of village Gharachon and in view of the discussions had with Sh.Ashu Malik,diver and other persons, we are of the opinion that Sh.Rattan Kumar son of Sh.Parkash Chand , resident of village Gharachon had committed suicide by jumping in Bhakra canal, Passiana, Patiala on the morning of 3.5.2014 and had not fallen accidentally as had been claimed by the family”.
6. It is further averred by the Op that the claim of the complainant was repudiated under General Exclusion No.3, which provides: “Any claim of the insured person from intentional self-injury, suicide or attempted suicide” The complainant was duly conveyed regarding the repudiation vide registered letter dated 29.10.2014.The Op has also raised the objection with regard to the jurisdiction of this Forum to try the complaint in as much as the policy was purchased by Op no.1 from the branch office of the Op at Mumbai and the policy servicing office is situate at M.G.Road, Gurgaon and even the complainants  do not reside at Sangrur.
7. In support of her complaint, the complainant produced in evidence Ex.CA, her sworn affidavit, Ex.CB, the sworn affidavit of Kapil Dev son of the deceased alongwith the documents Exs.C1 to C6 and her counsel closed the evidence.
8. On the other hand, on behalf of the Op, it’s counsel tendered in evidence Ex.OPA, the sworn affidavit of Sh.Jitindra Jain,Chief Litigation Manager of the Op, Ex.OPB, the sworn affidavit of Sh.H.S.Bedi of Bee VEE Investigating Agency, Patiala alongwith the documents Exs.OP1 to OP3 and closed the evidence.
9. The parties failed to file the written arguments.We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the evidence on record.
10. Ex.C1 is the copy of the letter dated 29.10.2014, written by Op no.2 to Op no.1 on the subject: Claim No.(CCN Number)200201-4112-14-0-500086-01 pertaining to death of late Mr.Rattan Kumar(hereinafter for the sake of brevity be referred to as “victim”) on 04/05/2014  and interalia, informed, “ On receipt of intimation of the claim, we have appointed an Investigator to find out the exact cause of death. We are in receipt of investigation report and on perusal of the same, it is clear that the deceased has  committed suicide.

We would draw your attention to part III General exclusions point 3, which reads as “ Any claim of the insured Person(i) from intentional self-injury, suicide or attempted suicide.

Thus, we regret to convey you our inability to consider your subject  claim. Your subject claim thus, stands Repudiated”

11. Ex.OP2 is the copy of the report dated 9.8.2014, given by Sh.H.S.Bedi, Investigator of BeeVee Investigating agency on the subject: Investigation of death claim of Rattan Kumar son of Parkash Chand under policy No.4112-200201-13-500006-00-000 claim No.-2002001-4112-14-0-500086-01. In the conclusion of the report , it is recorded: “On the basis of our inquiry made from Sh.Major Singh resident of village Gharachon and in view of the discussion had with Sh.Ashu Malik diver and other persons, we are of the opinion that Sh.Rattan Kumar s/o Sh.Parkash Chand resident of village Gharachon had committed suicide by jumping in Bhakra canal Passiana, Patiala on the morning of 3.5.2014 and had not fallen accidentally as had been claimed by the family.

In view of the above it indicates that the family had tried to obtain undue benefit by misrepresenting and making false declarations under the policy.

We have highlighted all the facts as emerged during the course of investigation subject to the decision of competent authority.

Report is issued without prejudice to any one and is strictly for the use of the underwriters only”

12. On the other hand, the complainant has produced in evidence besides her sworn affidavit,Ex.CA, the sworn affidavit of her son Kapil Dev who had been accompanying the deceased at the time of the incident,Ex.C4, the copy of DDR No.8 dated 4.5.2014 of P.S.Passiana, recorded on the basis of the statement made by Kapil Dev son of Rattan Kumar, Ex.C5, the copy of the postmortem examination report in respect of the deceased Rattan Kumar s/o Parkash Chand dated 4.5.2014, the statement of Kapil Dev also having been placed on record.
13. Sh.H.S.Bedi,the Investigator of BeeVee Investigating agency, who prepared the report at the instance of Op no.2, came to the conclusion that the deceased Rattan Kumar had committed suicide by jumping into the Bhakra canal on the basis of secret inquiry made by him from Sh.Major Singh resident of village Gharachon and the discussions made by him with Sh.Ashu Malik,diver and other persons . A perusal of the report, Ex.OP2, would go to show that he(Sh.Ashu Malik)  and  members of the team had fished out the body of the deceased when seen floating in Bhakra canal about 40Kms away from Patiala in the afternoon of 3.5.2014 and when the body was wearing underwear only.No reliance can be placed on the report of the Investigator Sh.H.S.Bedi, in the absence of the statement of said Sh.Ashu Malik, having been recorded by the Investigator. Any secret inquiry to have been made by him from Sh.Major Singh r/o village Gharachon, who disclosed that Rattan Kumar had removed his clothes (Pant and shirt) before jumping into Bhakra canal is also of no avail, in the absence of the statement of said Sh.Major Singh to have been recorded by the Investigator. The  investigation report is based on hearsay evidence.
14. On the other hand, there is the categorical deposition made by Kapil Dev, the deponent of Ex.CB, that on 3.5.2014, he alongwith his father had been going to Kali Mata Temple at Patiala for paying obeisance from village Gharachon on a scooter driven by him and when they reached near Main Line Bhakra Passiana bridge at 7am ,he stopped the scooter. His father alighted and went towards canal in order to immerse the Havana Samagri in the canal but unfortunately his foot slipped near the canal when he was immersing the samagri  and fell into the canal and died due to drowning .He and others tried to save his father but due to the flow of the water in the canal and the depth in the canal water, they could not save him.
15. The Op did not opt to cross-examine Kapil Dev, the deponent of Ex.CB to shake the credibility of his testimony. It is important to note that the deceased was Pandit by caste  and therefore, the plea taken up by the complainant that he had to immerse the ashes of the Havana Samagri into the canal can not be looked down, particularly when in the report Ex.OP2, the Investigator Mr.H.S.Bedi has stated that he had talked about the incident with other witnesses on their cell numbers and who asked him to come after a day or two as they would verify the fact. Again he had made a talk on telephone with them and who told that the cause of death of Rattan Kumar given by the family was correct. It is further recorded in the report that after a gap of 2-3 days again he had talked the sarpanch Sh.Gurmeet Singh and who told him that he had inquired into the matter from the family and the cause of death given by the family was correct.
16. As regards the fact that when the dead body of late Rattan Kumar was recovered, it was wearing only an underwear would not mean that he had committed suicide because in this part of the country many religious people especially the Pandits while immersing the ashes of the Havana Samagri in the flowing water put off their clothes and remain wearing only the janeu .It was for the Op to have illicited  the said facts by cross-examining Kapil Dev, the deponent of Ex.CB.
17. As regards the enquiry made by the Investigator Sh.H.S.Bedi from Sh.Jagdish Kumar son of Charan Dass ,Baildar working with the canal department  of the Bhkara Main Line Canal and who disclosed on inquiry as to whether he was aware about the incident when the person had raised any alarm and who replied in negative and who further disclosed that his office remains open round clock and that the place of incident is very much visible from the room. Again the said part of the report is of no avail to the Op in the absence of the statement of said Sh.Jagdish Kumar, Baildar to have been recorded by the Investigator. Nobody can say with a certainty that a person in the name of Jagdish Kumar son of Charan Dass is employed as a Baildar in the Canal department and where he was deployed at the time of the incident. It is a matter of common knowledge that a Baildar is employed on the banks of the canal and they are given a beat to look after the banks of the canal. It was for the Op to have lead the positive evidence that the place of the incident falls in the beat of the Baildar Jagdish Kumar and that he was supposed to be present at the time of incident, in the absence of which there is hardly any justification to rely upon this part of the report of the Investigator.
18. We cannot accept the report Ex.OP2 blindly that the deceased had committed suicide. The Investigator was supposed to collect some evidence from the locality of the deceased to know as to whether there was any occasion and the opportunity for the deceased to have committed suicide. It is very much recorded in the report Ex.OP2 that the deceased had been running a tea stall in the village. On 2.5.2014 an Havana was arranged in the house. The said fact could not be rebutted by the Investigator. In case a religious ceremony like arranging a Havana was arranged in the house of the deceased on 2.5.2014,  it would only mean that the things were going there normal in the family of the deceased and the deceased appears to be a man of religious bent of mind and in the absence of any adverse circumstances brought on record by the Investigator, it is not possible for us to accept the plea of  suicide made out by the Investigator, in his report Ex.OP2. To the contrary, the plea of the complainant that the deceased had fallen suddenly while immersing ashes of the Havana in the Bhakra canal, the same having been corroborated by nobodyelse than Kapil Dev son of the deceased, who was present at the time of the incident, appears to be plausible and probable. Therefore, the repudiation of the claim by the Op on the basis of the report Ex.OP2 of the Investigator Sh.H.S.Bedi ,can not be up held.
19. Here, it is important to note that the Op has also raised the objection with regard to the jurisdiction of this Forum to try the complaint on the ground that the policy was purchased from the branch office of the Op at Mumbai while the servicing office of the Op is at M.G.Road, Gurgaon and that the complainants are also not the residents of Sangrur. In this regard, it was submitted by Sh.D.P.S.Anand, the learned counsel for the complainant that the incident regarding the drowning of the insured had taken place within the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum i.e. in the area of P.S.Passiana, which falls within the District, Patiala. He also placed reliance upon the citationBharti Axa General Insurance Company Limited Versus Venus 1(2012)CPJ 207 of the Hon’ble Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chandigarh. In the case of the citation, it was observed that the insured car had met with an accident in District Ferozepur within the jurisdiction of P.S.Kulgari,District Ferozepur . As such it was held that the part of the cause of action accrued in District Ferozepur and the District Forum, Ferozepur was having the territorial jurisdiction to try and decide the complaint as per provisions of Section 11(2)( c) of the Act. In our case , the deceased had drowned in the Bhakra Main Line canal within the area of P.S.Passiana, District Patiala and therefore, the part of the cause of action having accrued within the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum, we are of the considered view that this Forum is competent to try the complaint.
20. As an up short of our aforesaid discussion, it would appear that Op no.2 made the repudiation of the claim of the complainant without any justifiable grounds. As per Liberty Videocon Group Personal Accident Policy – Policy Schedule,Ex.OP1,the complainant is entitled to the insured amount of Rs.one lac.No doubt there are other legal heirs of the deceased namely Kapil Dev and Mukesh, whose names have figured in the report of the Investigator,Ex.OP2, but as per the account opening form, in respect of account No.139 opened by the deceased Rattan Kumar with Op no.1, he had nominated his wife Smt.Karamjit Kaur as a nominee and therefore, the complainant is entitled to collect the amount of the insurance benefit being the nominee of the deceased. The Op no.2 is directed to make the payment of Rs.one lac with interest @9% per annum from the date of the repudiation i.e. 29.10.2014 till final payment. In view of the facts and circumstances of the complaint, the same is accepted with costs assessed at Rs.5000/-.The order be complied by the Op within one month on receipt of the certified copy of the order.

Pronounced

Dated: 9.6.2015

 

                   Sonia Bansal                Neelam Gupta                        D.R.Arora

          Member                        Member                                  President