Haryana

Yamunanagar

CC/260/2011

Savitri Devi W/o Mahinder Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Topra Kalan Co-operative Credit And Saving Society Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Naresh Khurana

31 Jan 2017

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, YAMUNA NAGAR

 

                                                                                          Complaint No. 260 of 2011.

                                                                                          Date of institution: 25.03.2011   

                                                                                          Date of decision: 31.01.2017

 

Savitri Devi aged about 45 years wife of late Mahinder Singh, 2. Vikram Singh, 3. Rajesh, 4. Sanjeev Kumar son of late Mahinder Singh,

All residents of village Topra Kalan Sub Tehsil Radaur, Tehsil Jagadhri, District Yamuna Nagar.

 

   …Complainant.

                                    Versus

1. The Topra Kalan Cooperative Credit & Saving Society Ltd. Village Topra Kalan Sub Tehsil Radaur, Tehsil Jagadhri, District Yamuna Nagar through its Secretary.
2. Oriental Insurance Company Kurukshetra Tehsil Kurukshetra Distt. Kurukshetra being insurer of deceased Mahinder Singh son of Sh. Sunder Ram r/o Topra Kalan, Sub Tehsil Radaur, Tehsil Jagadhri, Distt. Yamuna Nagar. 

                                                                                                            ...Respondents

 

BEFORE:         SH. ASHOK KUMAR GARG…………….. PRESIDENT.

                         SH. S.C.SHARMA………………………….MEMBER.

 

Present:           Sh. Naresh Khurana, Advocate for complainant.

                         Sh. Sahib Singh Gurjar, Advocate for respondent No.1

                         Smt. Aruna Rani, Advocate, counsel for respondent No.2. 

 

ORDER

 

1                      The present complaint has been filed by the legal heirs of deceased Mahinder Singh with the averments that the deceased Mahinder Singh was member of respondent No.1Cooperative Society (hereinafter respondents will be referred as OPs). The OP No.1 Society got insured the abovesaid Mahinder Singh and its other members from the Op No.2 Insurance Company under Group Insurance Scheme and as per insurance policy after the death of insured, the OP No.2 Insurance Company was liable to pay Rs. 1,00,000/-to the complainants being legal heirs of the deceased. As the deceased Mahinder Singh sustained multiple injuries due to fall from the roof and due to said injuries he died on the same day i.e. on 18.05.2006. The complainants were not aware about the fact of taking insurance policy by the deceased and when in the month of December, 2010 this fact came to the knowledge of the complainants, the complainants immediately requested the official of OP No.1 Cooperative Society to provide benefits of Group Insurance Scheme but the official of the Op No.1 put off the matter on one pretext or the other. Even, the Op No.1 did not provide any detail of insurance particulars regarding the Group Insurance Scheme of deceased Mahinder Singh. Hence, there is a great deficiency in service on the part of the Ops. Lastly, prayed for directing the OPs to provide the benefits of insurance policy alongwith interest and also to pay compensation as well as litigation expenses. Hence, this complaint.  Hence, this complaint.

2.                     Upon notice, OPs appeared and filed its written statement separately. OP No.1 filed its written statement by taking some preliminary objections such as complaint is not maintainable; complainant has no locus standi to file the present complaint; no cause of action; complainants are legally estopped by their own act and conduct to file the present complaint; there is no deficiency in service; complainants have concealed the true and material facts from this Forum. The true facts are that deceased Mahinder Singh husband of the complainant No.1 was member of the OP No.1 Cooperative Society and the said Mahinder Singh had taken Group loan from the Op No.1 Society and in order to secure its amount the said Mahinder Singh alongwith other members had got insured under Group Scheme with Oriental Insurance Company by the OP No.1 Society and nothing due to pay towards the said Mahinder Singh as his account is very much nil and on merit controverted the plea taken in the complaint and reiterated the stand taken in the preliminary objections. Lastly, prayed for dismissal of complaint against Op No.1.

3.                     Op No.2 filed its written statement by taking some preliminary objections such as complaint is hopelessly time barred because as per assertion made in the complaint the husband of complainant No.1 died on 18.05.2006 and the present complaint has been filed in the year 2011 i.e. after more than 5 years. Even, the OP No.2 was summoned in the year 2015 and on its first appearance on 24.02.2015 the complaint of the complainant was liable to be dismissed as the complainant and Op No.1 failed to supply any documents to the Op No.2. Even, the documents filed by the complainant towards the payment of premium through cheque dated 02.11.2004 covers the period of only one (1) year and the alleged death took place on 18.05.2006 is not covered. Further, no claim was ever lodged with the Op No.2 Insurance Company either by the complainants or the OP No.1 Cooperative Society. On merit controverted the stand taken in the complaint and reiterated the stand taken in the preliminary objections and lastly prayed for dismissal of complaint against Op No.2 as there is no deficiency in service on the part of OP No. 2.

4.                     In support of the case, counsel for the complainant tendered into evidence short affidavit of the complainant Savitri Devi as Annexure CW/A and documents such as photo copy of death certificate as Annexure C-1, Prescription slips of Chadha Hospital as Annexure C-2, Photo copy of cheque dated 02.11.2004 issued in favour of Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. by OP No.1 amounting to Rs. 32034/- as Annexure C-3 and C-4, Photo copy of cover note of pass book as Annexure C-5 and closed the evidence on behalf of complainant.

5.                     On the other hand, counsel for the Op No.1 failed to adduce any evidence, hence his evidence was closed by court order on 30.01.2017.

6                      Learned counsel for the op No.2 tendered into evidence affidavit of Sh. Aabhas Toppo, Assistant Manager, OIC Ltd. as Anenxure RW2/A and closed the evidence on behalf of OP No.2.

7.                     We have heard the learned counsel for both the parties and have gone through the pleadings as well as documents placed on file carefully and minutely.

8.                     After hearing both the parties, we are of the considered view that complainant has neither filed any cover note/ insurance policy nor disclosed the particulars of the insurance policy despite so many directions since the filing of the complaint on 25.03.2011 till today. Even, on the application moved by Op No.2 on 05.07.2016 which was disposed off on 02.01.2017 complainant as well as Op No.1 failed to disclose the particulars of the insurance policy/cover note. Learned counsel for the complainant draw our attentions towards the photo copy of cheque dated 02.11.204 Annexure C-3 and argued that premium amount of Rs. 32034/- was paid to the Oriental Insurance Company ltd. Kurukshetra but from the perusal of this photo copy of cheque it is nowhere proved that this cheque was issued for issuance of insurance policy covering the risk of deceased Mahinder Singh. Even this cheque is of dated 02.11.2004 and husband of the complainant No.1 Mahinder Singh died on 18.05.2006 ( as per death certificate Annexure C-1). So, from the view of this point, if any, policy was issued against this cheque dated 02.11.2004 then it will be valid up to 01.11.2005 maximum whereas the deceased Mahinder Singh died on 18.05.2006. Further, the complainants have also failed to prove that any premium was paid to Op No.1 for getting the insurance policy from the Op No.2.

9.                     From the perusal of the contents of the complaint mentioned in para No.5, it is clear that deceased Mahinder Singh died on 18.05.2006 but the present complaint has been filed before this Forum on 25.03.2011 which is hopelessly time barred as per section 24(a) of the Consumer Protection Act. Even, no application for condonation of delay has been filed by the complainant with the complaint.

10.                   In the circumstances noted above, the complainants have totally failed to prove that the deceased Mahinder Singh was insured with the Op No.2 for the relevant period and also failed to lodge any claim with the OP No.2 Insurance Company and further the complaint has been filed after a gap of near about 5 years. Hence, in the absence of any cogent evidence, we have no option except to dismiss the present complaint.

11.                   Resultantly, we find no merit in the present complaint and the same is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs. Copies of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of costs as per rules. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced in open court.31.01.2017.

                                                                                          (ASHOK KUMAR GARG)

                                                                                           PRESIDENT

                                                                                           DCDRF Yamuna Nagar

 

 

                                                                                          (S.C.SHARMA)

                                                                                           MEMBER