DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,<br /> BATHINDA (PUNJAB)<br /> <br /> CC No. 235 of 14.08.2007<br /> Decided on : 19-12-2007 <br /> <br /> 1.Karamjit Kaur @ Balwinder Kaur Wd/o Sukha Singh<br /> 2.Kulbir Kaur @ Pammi Minor D/o Sukha Singh<br /> 3.Balwant Singh Minor S/o Sukha Singh<br /> 4.Sunil Kumar minor S/o Sukha Singh<br /> 5.Rina Rani @ Komal D/o Sukha Singh through their mother Karamjit Kaur @ Balwinder Kaur next friend and Natural Guardian of the Minors.<br /> 6.Harbans Kaur Wd/o Nachhattar Singh (Mother)<br /> 7.Nachhattar Singh S/o Dula Singh (Father) all residents of Goniana Road, Street No. 26, Mukatsar.<br /> ... Complainants<br /> Versus<br /> <br /> 1.United India Insurance Company Limited, The Mall, Bathinda through its Divisional Manager.<br /> 2.United India Insurance Company Limited, Branch Office Bagha Purana through its Branch Manager.<br /> 3.Sanjiv, authorised agent of United India Insurance Company Limited, C/o Banti-Parveen Boot House, Geeta Bhawan Road, Bhagta Bhai Ka. <br /> <br /> ...Opposite parties<br /> <br /> Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection<br /> Act, 1986.<br /> <br /> QUORUM :<br /> Sh. Lakhbir Singh, President<br /> Sh. Hira Lal Kumar, Member<br /> Dr. Phulinder Preet, Member<br /> <br /> For the Complainant : Sh. Naresh Garg, Advocate.<br /> For the Opposite parties : Sh. Sunder Gupta, Advocate for opposite party No.1 & 2.<br /> Opposite party No. 3 exparte. <br /> <br /> <br /> O R D E R <br /> <br /> LAKHBIR SINGH, PRESIDENT <br /> 1. This complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (Here-in-after referred to as 'Act') has been preferred by the complainants seeking direction from this forum to the opposite parties to pay them Rs. 1.00 Lac and other benefits in case the Insurance Policy discloses them, alongwith interest @ 18% P.A., Rs. 15,000/- as damages for mental agony and pains and Rs. 5,000/- as litigation expenses.<br /> 2. Briefly put the case of the complainant is that vehicle Tata 909 bearing Registration No. PB-03F-2162 was duly insured with United India Insurance Company Limited through opposite party No. 3 an authorised agent of opposite parties No. 1& 2 w.e.f. 27.3.06 to 26.3.07. Insurance Cover Note No. 626445 was issued. Insurance cover note covered personal accident for two any persons ( P.A. two any persons) for Rs. 1.00 each. A sum of 100/- i.e. Rs. 50/- for each of two persons was charged. This Tata 909 was being driven by Jagsir Singh on 8.3.07. At about 7.00 A.M. it had met with an accident with milk tanker bearing registration No. PB-05L-5662. Jagsir Singh driver, Sukha Singh cleaner and Ganesh Chand @ Ramesh Chander Caretaker-cum-labourer were travelling in Tata 909 and all the three had died at the spot. Case FIR No. 39 dated 8.3.07 was registered against the driver of the milk tanker in Police Station Sadar Taran Taaran. Dead body of Sukha Singh was subjected to post mortem examination at Civil Hospital, Taran Taaran. Complainant No. 1 is the widow and complainants No. 2 to 5 are the issues of Sukha Singh, deceased. Complainants No. 6 & 7 are the mother and father respectively of this deceased. Intimation of the accident was given by Hari Krishan owner of Tata 909 to the opposite parties No. 1 & 2. Spot surveyor was deputed by them. Complainant No. 1 had also sent registered letter to opposite party No. 2 on 8.5.07 through which she had sent full details of class-I heirs of Sukha Singh, deceased. Copy of the post mortem report was also sent to opposite party No. 2 by Manish Bansal, Special Power of Attorney holder of Hari Krishan owner. Letters dated 26.5.07, 8.6.07, 23.6.07, 28.6.07 and 24.7.07 were written by Hari Krishan and Manish Bansal demanding claim regarding Sukha Singh under personal accident claim. Complainant No. 1 also requested through letter dated 8.5.07 for releasing the claim amount, but opposite parties sent no replies of the letters. They are sitting over the claim for the last about five months. Complainants allege that act and conduct of the opposite parties have caused them mental agony, pains and sufferings and there is deficiency in service on their part<br /> 3. On being put to notice, opposite parties No. 1 & 2 filed their version taking legal objections that complainants are not consumers; there is no privity of contract between them and the complainants as no premium has been deposited by them (complainants) or the deceased; Jagsir Singh deceased driver was not holding valid and effective driving licence to drive the canter at the time of alleged accident and he was only holding LTV licence whereas insured vehicle is HTV one and the deceased had no authority to drive it; complainants have concealed true and material facts from this forum; complainants are estopped from filing the complaint by their act and conduct; complaint is false and frivolous; complainants have no locus standi and cause of action to file it and this Forum has got no jurisdiction to entertain and try it. According to them complaint is bad for mis-joinder of parties i.e. opposite parties No. 2. Complainants have already filed claim petition regarding the same cause of action under Section 163-A of the Motor vehicle Act before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bathinda and the same is pending and as such, this complaint is not maintainable. Complainants cannot be permitted to take double benefit under the same policy as they have claimed the amount from this Forum as well as from the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. As per Insurance Cover Note No. 626445 issued by Branch Office , Bagha Purana, personal accident cover has been issued to any two employees from driver/cleaner/conductor after accepting premium of Rs. 100/-. Deceased Sukha Singh was not an employee of the insured. He was a gratuitous passenger. No extra premium has been charged by them to cover the liability of the passenger. Hence they are not liable to pay any compensation. In case this Forum comes to the conclusion that they are liable to pay any payment, complainants be directed to compensate the LRs of the third deceased. They assert that their liability, if any, is limited to Rs. 82,500/- as per IMT-17. On merits , they admit that vehicle Tata 909 was insured with United India Insurance Company Limited. Employees of the insured are not covered under the compulsory Act policy under Section 147 of the Motor vehicle Act. As per Clause 1(i) of Section 147 of the Motor Vehicles Act, the policy shall not be required to cover liability in respect of death arising out of and in the course of his employment of any employee of any person insured by the policy or in respect of bodily injuries sustained by such an employees arising out of or in the course of his employment. Insured had deposited Rs. 100/- for P.A. cover to any two employees for any claim. They admit that accident had occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the tanker bearing registration No. PB-05L-5662. It is further averred by them that complainants have not proved that deceased were the employees of the insured. They do not specifically admit the remaining averments in the complaint.<br /> 4. Registered A.D. post notice was issued to opposite party o. 3 on 23.8.07. Neither registered cover nor A.D. was received till 25.9.07. Accordingly opposite party No. 3 has been deemed to have been duly served. Neither he nor any one else on his behalf came present. Accordingly, he has been proceeded against exparte. <br /> 5. In support of their averments contained in the complaint, complainants have produced in evidence affidavits of complainant No. 1 & 7 (Ex. C-1 & Ex. C-2 respectively), photocopy of Insurance Cover Note (Ex. C-3), photocopy of letter dated 26.5.07 (Ex. C-4), photocopy of postal receipt (Ex. C-5), photocopies of letters (Ex. C-6 to Ex. C-10), photocopy of post mortem report (Ex. C-11), photocopy of FIR (Ex. C-12), affidavit of Hari Krishan (Ex. C-13), photocopy of Verification report (Ex. C-14) and photocopy of claim petition in MACT, Bathinda (Ex. C-15).<br /> 6. In rebuttal, on behalf of opposite parties No. 1 & 2 affidavit of sh. Gobind Aggarwal, Divisional Manager (Ex. R-1), copy of policy (Ex. R-2), photocopy of IMT clauses (Ex. R-3), photocopy of driving licence of Jagsir Singh (Ex. R-4), photocopy of Verification report dated 22.6.07 (Ex. R-5), photocopy of RC of vehicle No. PB-03F/2162 (Ex. R-6) and photocopy of agreement (Ex. R-7) have been tendered in evidence.<br /> 7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. Besides this, we have gone through the record and written briefs of arguments submitted on behalf of complainants and opposite parties No. 1 & 2<br /> 8. Vehicle Tata 909 bearing Registration No. PB-03F/2162 was insured with opposite parties No. 1 & 2 vide cover note, copy of which is Ex. C-3. It was in the name of Hari Krishan. This vehicle had met with an accident on 8.3.07 with a milk tanker bearing registration No. PB-05L-5662. In the accident Jagsir Singh, driver, Sukha Singh and Ganesh Chand @ Ramesh Chander had died. Criminal case was registered against the driver of the milk tanker and copy of the same is Ex. C-12. An intimation regarding accident was received by opposite Insurance Company and spot survey was got conducted. Hari Krishan and complainant No. 1 demanded claim of Sukha Singh under P.A. cover but opposite parties No. 1 & 2 have not paid the claim amount.<br /> 9. First argument pressed into service by Mr. Gupta, learned counsel for opposite parties No.1 & 2 is that complainants are not consumers as they have not availed any services of opposite parties No. 1 & 2. There is no privity of contract between them and opposite parties No. 1 & 2 as no premium has been deposited by them or Sukha Singh.<br /> 10. We have considered this submission and we do not feel ourselves inclined to agree with the learned counsel for opposite parties No. 1 & 2. Ex. C-3 is the copy of the insurance cover note according to which opposite Insurance Company has covered personal accident for any two persons (P.A. to any two persons). So far as premium is concerned, it can be paid by any person. Fact that premium has not been paid by Sukha Singh who has died in the accident and by the complainants is immaterial. Three persons have died in the accident. Hari Krishan owner is demanding the claim for two persons as is evident from Ex. C-4 dated 26.5.07 as opposite Insurance Company has covered the personal accident for two any persons and has charged Rs. 100/- i.e. Rs. 50/- for each and covered each of them for Rs. 1.00 Lac. Karamjit Kaur, complainant also moved application to the Branch Manager of opposite Insurance Company, copy of which is Ex. C-10, regarding P.A. claim of Sukha Singh. Complainants No. 1 to 6 are beneficiaries/legal representatives of deceased Sukha Singh. Persons who are the legal heirs of the deceased have been mentioned in Ex. C-10. In para no. 9 of the complaint, complainants have also made clear that complainants No. 1 to 6 are the class-I legal heirs of this deceased. Insurance covers personal accident of two persons. Sukha Singh was one of the persons in Tata 909 when accident had occurred and he has expired. P.A. claim has been lodged concerning him. Hence complainants No. 1 to 6 are consumers in the facts and circumstances and also by operation of law.<br /> 11. Next objection of the opposite parties is that Jagsir Singh, driver of Tata 909 was not having valid and effective driving licence to drive it. He was holding only LTV licence whereas this vehicle is HTV. Jagsir Singh had no authority to drive it. In this way, insured has violated the terms and conditions of the policy and opposite parties No. 1 & 2 are not liable to pay any compensation. Gross weight of the vehicle was 9000 Kgs. This argument is devoid of merits. Hari Krishan owner of the vehicle got verification of the vehicle Tata 909 by way of moving an application as is evident from Ex. C-14. District Transport officer, Bathinda has verified that this vehicle is Light Transport Vehicle. Ex. R-4 is the copy of the driving licence of Jagsir Singh driver of this vehicle. It reveals that Jagsir Singh was entitled to drive light transport vehicle only. Pawan Kumar Bansal, Surveyor & Loss Assessor of the opposite Insurance Company got verification of the driving licence of Jagsir Singh from District Transport Officer, Mukatsar. District Transport Officer has made report that driving licence is valid from 14.12.04 to 13.12.07 for driving light transport vehicle and it was renewed for this period. Mr. Pawan Kumar Bansal through letter copy of which is Ex. R-5 has made it clear to the Branch Manager of the opposite Insurance Company that as per verification report received from the District Transport Officer, Mukatsar, driving licence and its renewal is genuine. Ex. R-6 is the copy of the registration certification of Tata 909. In this document Class of this vehicle has been recorded as LCV. No doubt in this document gross vehicle weight has been recorded as 9000 Kgs. This does not make this vehicle as HTV in view of the verification report of the vehicle by District Transport officer, Bathinda, copy of which is Ex. C-14 and in view of Section 2(21) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 defines Light Motor Vehicle according to which Light Motor Vehicle means a transport vehicle or omnibus the gross vehicle weight of either of which or a motor car or tractor or road roller the unladen weight of any which, does not exceed 7500 Kgs. In this case the unladen weight of this Tata 909 is 3000 Kgs. Hence, it is light motor vehicle or light transport vehicle. Jagsir Singh was competent to drive such vehicle. Hence, objection taken by opposite party No. 1& 2 that he was not holding valid and effective driving licence and had no authority to drive Tata 909 and the insured has violated the terms and conditions of the policy is not tenable.<br /> 12. Admittedly complainants have filed claim petition under Section 163-A of the Motor vehicle Act in the court of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bathinda, which is pending and the copy of the same is Ex. C-15. Contention of Mr. Gupta, learned counsel for opposite party no. 1 & 2 is that since they have already filed claim petition regarding the same cause of action under Section 163-A of the Motor vehicles Act and the same is pending, they are estopped from filing this complaint by their act and conduct and this complaint is not maintainable. Complainant cannot be permitted to take double benefit under the same policy. To support it, reliance is placed by opposite parties No. 1 & 2 on the authorities Smt. Kulwant Kaur Vs. Punjab State Electricity Board 1993(3) CPR page 400 and M/s Bunny's Gift & Novelty Centre Vs. Punjab & Sind Bank 1993(3) CPR page 325.<br /> 13. Mr. Garg, learned counsel for the complainants argued that as per Insurance Cover Note, copy of which is Ex. C-3, opposite Insurance Company has covered personal accident claim of two any persons and separate premium has been charged for it. For third party claim under the Motor vehicle Act, opposite Insurance Company has charged separate premium of Rs. 3480/- and as such, this complaint is maintainable.<br /> 14. Thoughtful consideration to these rival arguments have been given by us and we find considerable force in the submission of the learned counsel for the complainants. According to cover note Ex. C-3, opposite Insurance Company has charged Rs. 3480/- under Motor vehicle Act for third party insurance. A sum of Rs. 100/- has been charged separately to cover personal accident of two any persons. So far as petition under Section 163-A which has been moved before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal is concerned, it is regarding third party claim under the Motor vehicle Act. Even if the vehicle is not insured, the claim was to be given by the owner under Section 147 of the Motor vehicle Act. Third party claim is to be given by the owner and under Section 149 of the Motor Vehicle Act, insurer is to indemnify him. In the claim petition under Section 163-A, owners of both the vehicles and the insurance companies concerning them are parties. In this case, the claim of the complainants is independent for which separate premium of Rs. 100/- has been paid. It is totally separate contract regarding which complaint for deficiency in service is maintainable. In this view of the matter, we are fortified by the observations of the Hon'ble Judge of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Dr. A C Mehra Vs. Bihari Lal and another 1998 ACJ 379. In that case comprehensively insured car was damaged in an accident. Insurance Company with which car was insured had paid the charges for repairs to workshop. Question was as to whether amount paid by the Insurance Company is deductible from the compensation awarded against the owner/driver of the offending vehicle. The question was answered in the negative by holding that this was paid under a separate contract between the owner and the Insurer of the car. Similar view was held by the Hon'ble Jammu Kashmir High Court in the case of National Insurance Company Limited Vs. R K Abrol & Others II(2005) ACC 434. In that case insurer wanted adjustment of amount which was paid by State Government as compensation. It was held that what an employees gets by way of compensation from employer is under contract of service whereas amount which Insurance Company is to pay is to be paid under different contract i.e. contract of insurance. Liability under two heads is distinct or different and has to be discharged independently by contracting parties and that the concept of duplication of compensation not applicable. Similar view has been held by the Hon'ble State Commission, Punjab in the case of Mandeep Singh Vs. Chairman-cum-Managing Director, New India Assurance Company and others Original Complaint No. 5 of 2003 decided 21.11.2005. With utmost regard and humility to the authorities relied upon by opposite parties No. 1 & 2, they are distinguishable on facts. Accordingly, we hold that complaint is maintainable. Complainants are not estopped from filing it and the concept of duplication of compensation is not applicable to this case on account of the fact that claim petition under Section 163-A of the Motor vehicle Act is already pending before Motor Vehicles Accident Claim Tribunal.<br /> 15. According to the learned counsel for opposite parties No. 1 & 2 cover note has been issued to any two employees from driver/cleaner/conductor after accepting premium of Rs. 100/-. Sukha Singh was not employee of the insured as vehicle was transferred to M/s. Ambika Agro Mills vide agreement dated 18.1.07, copy of which is Ex. R-7 and he was a gratuitous passenger. No extra premium was charged to cover the liability of the passengers and as such, Insurance Company is not liable to pay the compensation to the complainants. Learned counsel for the complainants countered this arguments by submitting that deceased Sukha Singh was not a gratuitous passenger and that Cover Note covers personal accident of two any persons. After screening evidence on the record, we are of the view that submission of the learned counsel for opposite parties No. 1 & 2 cuts no ice. For the purpose of supporting this submission, opposite parties No. 1 & 2 are relying upon the copy of the Insurance Policy Ex. R-2 according to which a sum of Rs. 99/- has been shown to have been charged to cover personal accident of driver/cleaner/conductor No. 2, amount Rs. 82,500/-. This insurance policy cannot be said to be binding upon the complainants and the owner of Tata 909. Admittedly it was issued on 29.3.07 whereas the period for which cover note, copy of which is Ex. C-3 was issued was from 27.3.06 to 26.3.07. Moreover, opposite Insurance Company changed the amount of premium from Rs. 100/- to Rs. 99/- suo-motively. Opposite Insurance Company is bound by the Insurance Cover Note Ex. C-3 according to which a sum of Rs. 100/- has been charged as premium to cover personal accident to two any persons. Deceased Sukha Singh was going in vehicle PB-03/F 2162 as its cleaner on the day of accident. Moreover, Ex. C-3 covers benefit of personal accident to any two persons, who may or may not be employee of the insured. Apart from this, it is also worth mentioning that as per Registration Certificate, copy of which is Ex. R-6 persons including driver could sit in this vehicle under the rules. Learned counsel for the opposite parties No. 1 & 2 could not tell that persons sitting in this Tata 909 were beyond the sitting capacity and on that account they were gratuitous passengers.<br /> 16. Next limb of the arguments of the learned counsel for the opposite parties No. 1 & 2 is that the liability, if any, of opposite Insurance Company is upto the extent of Rs. 82,500/- as per Clauses No. 17 & 18 of the Indian Motor Tariff concerning Sukha Singh as Rs. 99/- have been shown to have been charged as premium for two persons. Copy of the relevant clauses of Indian Motor Tariff is Ex. R-3. Opposite parties No. 1 & 2 admit in their own way in the reply of the complaint that a sum of Rs. 100/- has been charged as premium to cover personal accident of two persons. As mentioned above, they have changed the premium amount from Rs 100/- to Rs. 99/- in the copy of the Insurance Policy which is Ex. R-2. Ex. R-3 also reveals that it is an independent and separate contract of the Insurance Company with the owner of the vehicle which is insured. When endorsement IMT 18 is considered on the basis of the amount of Rs. 100/- deposited as premium, the liability for each of the two persons covered comes to Rs. 83,300/- instead of Rs. 82,500/-.<br /> 17. One of the objections in the reply is that in case this Forum comes to the conclusion that Insurance Company is liable to make payment to the complainants, direction deserves to be given to the complainants/insured to compensate LRs of third deceased i.e. Jagsir Singh. This submission cannot be accepted. This Cover note covers P.A. to two any persons. It is for the owner of the insured vehicle to determine who should be two persons involved in the accident to whom the benefit of personal accident claim should be got delivered. Hari Krishan also moved application,copy of which is Ex. C-4 making it clear to the opposite Insurance Company that he has lodged P.A. claim of Sukha Singh.<br /> 18. Objection that this Forum has got no jurisdiction to entertain and try the complaint as no part of cause of action has accrued within its territorial jurisdiction, is without any substance. Insurance Cover Note was got issued at Bhagta Bhai Ka within territorial jurisdiction of this Forum i.e. Bathinda through opposite party No. 3 on 25.3.06. Moreover, opposite party No. 1 is the Divisional Office of United India Insurance Company Limited at Bathinda. Mere fact that accident had taken place in the area of Police Station Sadar Taran Taaran is no ground to hold that cause of action to file the complaint has wholly arisen within District Taran Taaran. Hence, this Forum is well within its jurisdiction to entertain and try the complaint.<br /> 19. As per agreement, copy of which is Ex. R-7 Tata 909 in question has been shown to have been sold to Ambika Agro Mills on 18.1.07. On the basis of Ex. R-7, contention of the learned counsel for opposite parties No. 1 & 2 is that since the vehicle was transferred in the name of Ambika Agro Mills, opposite Insurance Company is not liable. This argument carries no conviction as the material documents are Registration Certificate and Insurance Cover Note, copies of which are Ex. R-6 & Ex. C-3 respectively. In the Registration Certificate, Hari Krishan is still owner of this vehicle. Insurance Cover for the period mentioned above is still in his name and he is claiming the benefit under it for two persons including Sukha Singh. Since the registered owner of Tata 909 is still Hari Krishan, this objection cannot be sustained.<br /> 20. Last limb of the arguments on behalf of opposite parties No. 1 & 2 is that as per Clause 1 (i) of Section 147 of the Motor Vehicles Act, the policy shall not be required to cover liability in respect of death arising out of and in the course of his employment of any employee of any person insured by the policy or in respect of bodily injuries sustained by such an employee arising out of or in the course of his employment. His further submission is that insured had deposited Rs. 100/- for P.A. cover to any two employees for any claim which may be filed against him under Motor Vehicles Act.<br /> 21. A thorough screening of the facts, circumstances, evidence and the legal position lead us to the conclusion that this submission on behalf of opposite parties No. 1 & 2 is not acceptable. Premium of Rs. 100/- was received covering P.A. of two any persons. Separate premium for liability under Motor vehicle Act was received by the opposite Insurance Company. Liability under PA, to two any persons is limited. Fact that Sukha Singh was an employee of Hari Krishan assumes no significance particularly when separate contract came into existence with the acceptance of Rs. 100/- by the opposite Insurance company covering P.A. to two any persons. In these circumstance, opposite parties No. 1 & 2 cannot drive any benefit under Section 147 of the Motor Vehicles Act.<br /> 22. As per letter dated 8.5.07 copy of which is Ex. C-10, Karamjit Kaur, complainant requested the Branch Manager of the opposite Insurance Company that P.A. claim of her husband be paid to her and complainants No. 2 to 6. Claim has not so far been passed. Opposite Insurance Company was supposed to adjudicate the claim within a period of three months which has not been done. In view of this and on account of our foregoing discussion, deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties No. 1 & 2 is writ large.<br /> 23. Now question arises as to which relief should be given to the complainants. Complainant No. 7 is not class-I legal heir of deceased Sukha Singh. Hence he is not entitled to any relief. So far as complainants No. 1 to 6 are concerned, they are legal heirs of the deceased. When premium of Rs. 100/- paid for covering P.A. to two any persons i.e. Rs. 50/- for each of them is considered, complainants No. 1 to 6 become entitled to recover Rs. 83,300/- (To be shared equally). Accordingly, direction deserves to be given to opposite parties No. 1 & 2 to pay this amount alongwith interest @ 9% P.A. from 09-08-2007 (The date calculated on expiry of three months period from the date of letter dated 8.5.07 written to the Branch Manager of the opposite Insurance company regarding P.A. claim of Sukha Singh, a period required for processing the case in an effective manner in normal course) till realisation. Complainants are craving for compensation of Rs. 15,000/- on account of mental agony and pains. There is no case to allow it in view of the relief which is going to be accorded as above in view of the authority Life Insurance Corporation of India Vs. Miss Bhupinder Kaur (Minor) and others 2002(2) CLT 646, wherein Hon'ble State Commission of Punjab held that interest is not granted within the contract between the insured and insurer, but within the provisions of Section 14(1)(d) of the Act on deficiency in rendering service being established for compensating the complainant. Held accordingly.<br /> 24. In the premises written above, complaint of complainants No. 1 to 6 is partly allowed against opposite parties No. 1 & 2 with cost of Rs. 2,000/-. It (complaint) stands dismissed qua opposite party No. 3 as principal liability to pay the insurance amount is of opposite parties No. 1 & 2. Accordingly, opposite parties No. 1 & 2 are directed to do as under :<br /> i) Pay Rs. 83,300/- to complainants No. 1 to 6 alongwith interest @ 9% P.A. from 09-08-2007 till realisation.<br /> In case sum recorded above is paid, the amount of the shares of minor complainants i.e. complainants No. 2 to 5 will be deposited in some fixed deposit account/accounts in some Nationalised Bank. The minors would be entitled to realise the amount on attaining majority to the satisfaction of the concerned Manager of the Bank.<br /> <br /> Compliance of this order be made within 30 days from the date of its receipt. Its copy be sent to the parties concerned and file be consigned. <br /> Pronounced :<br /> 19-12-2007 (Lakhbir Singh )<br /> President<br /> <br /> <br /> (Hira Lal Kumar)<br /> Member<br /> <br /> <br /> (Dr. Phulinder Preet)<br /> Member