Punjab

Sangrur

CC/782/2020

Labhpreet Kaur - Complainant(s)

Versus

United India Insurance Co. Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Sh. Sandip kumar Goyal

08 Oct 2024

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SANGRUR .

                                                                        Complaint No. 782

 Instituted on:   29.12.2020

                                                                         Decided on:     08.10.2024

 

Labhpreet Kaur wife of Late Harnek Singh son of Lila Singh, resident of Village Bushera, Tehsil Moonak, Distt. Sangrur.

                                                         …. Complainant 

                                                 Versus

1.             United India Insurance Company Limited, Registered and Head office 24, Whites Road, Madras-600014 through its MD/GM.

2.             State of Punjab through Deputy Commissioner, Sangrur.

3.             Punjab Health Systems Corporation, SIHFW Complex, Phase-6, Mohali through its Managing Director.

 

                                                        ..Opposite parties.

 

For the complainants :       Shri S.K.Goyal, Adv.

For OP No.1             :       Shri G.S.Sibia, Adv.

For OP No.2&3         :       Shri Vinay Kumar Jindal, Adv.

 

Quorum                                          

Jot Naranjan Singh Gill,                 :President

Sarita Garg,                                     :Member

Kanwaljeet Singh,                           :Member

 

 

ORDER

JOT NARANJAN SINGH GILL, PRESIDENT.

 

1.             The complainant has filed this complaint against the OPs on the ground that husband of the complainant Shri Harnek Singh was the member of Bhagat Puran Singh Sehat Bima Yojna, against which the OPs issued smart card bearing number 93053000366039927 under which a benefit of Rs.5,00,000/- was available in case of accidental death of card holder as per the scheme of the Punjab Govt.  Further case of complainant is that on 15.02.2019 unfortunately said Harnek Singh died in an accidental death due to hit of train at Tedepalligudem, West Godavari, Andhra Pradesh. Further case of complainant is that the complainant being the legal heir as well as nominee lodged the claim on the toll free number 104 of the OPs. Further case of complainant is that the employee of the OP i.e. United India Insurance Company  assured the complainant that employees of the OP number 1 will visit to her to collect the claim form alongwith all other relevant documents, but none for the OP number 1 visited for the purpose. Thereafter the complainant approached the OPs so many times to get the claim amount from the OP number 1,  but nothing was done.  Though the complainant got served legal notice dated 13.09.2019 upon the OPs for release of the claim amount of Rs.5,00,000/- but nothing was paid till filing of the complaint. Further, It is submitted that after sending legal notice the employee of OPs came to the complainant and collected the claim form and other relevant documents. 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 claim amount of Rs.5,00,000/- along with interest and further claimed compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- on account of mental tension, agony, pain  and further an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- was claimed as litigation expenses and counsel fee.

2.             In reply filed by OP number 1,  preliminary objections are taken up on the grounds that the complaint is not maintainable, that the complainant has filed the present complaint by concealing the true and material facts from this Commission, that the complainant has unnecessarily dragged the OP into uncalled litigation, that the complainant has no locus standi and cause of action to file the present complaint and that the complainant has not come to this Court with clean hands. On merits, the allegations levelled in the complaint have been denied. However, it is admitted that the complainant lodged the claim with the OP. It is further averred that the deceased was used to go the nearest railway track i.e. KM No.524/16-18 between Chebrole RS to Badampudi Railway Stations on 15.02.2019 at 2.10 Hrs to attend call of nature without observing running of trains, due to which, unknown running train which was proceeded towards down line, hit the deceased and he died on the spot due to sustaining of fatal injuries. As such, no claim is payable to the complainant. Further it is stated that the washrooms are made on the railway stations then why the deceased chose to attend call of nature on the railway track.  Any deficiency in service on the part of the OP has been denied. Lastly, prayed for dismissal of the complaint with costs.

3.             Record shows that vide order dated 17.06.2022, defence of OPs number 2 and 3 was struck off.

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

5.             We have gone through the pleadings put in by the parties along with their supporting documents with their valuable assistance. 

6.             At the outset, it is an admitted fact between the complainant and OP number 1 that Late Harnek Singh was insured with the OP number 1  for Rs.5,00,000/- in case of accidental death. It is also not in dispute that Harnek Singh died on 15.02.2019 due to railway accident, as is evident from the copy of FIR Number 9/2019 dated 15.02.2019 Ex.C-6 and No Objection Certificate issued by the Station house officer railway Police Station Tadepalligudem, where in it is mentioned that unknown running train which was proceed towards down line, hit the deceased and died on the spot sustained fatal injuries and Ex.C-4 is the copy of post-mortem report, wherein it has been clearly mentioned in the column of opinion as to the cause of death “seven head injury- Injury to vital organ- Brain. Ex.C-2 is the copy of legal notice and Ex.C-3 are the copies of postal receipts. Ex.C-5 is the copy of card of Bhagat Puran Singh Sehat Bima Yojna of Shri Harnek Singh. Ex.C-7 is the copy of death certificate of Harnek Singh son of Lila Singh. Ex.C-8 is  the copy of aadhar card of the complainant showing that she is the wife of Harnek Singh deceased. All this evidence is duly supported by the affidavit of complainant Ex.C-1. On the other hand, the stand of the OP number 1 is that there is no deficiency in service as the deceased died due to his own wrongs meaning thereby he went to the railway track to attend the call of nature, whereas washrooms were available on the railway station.  But in the present case, the fact remains that the deceased Harnek Singh died an accidental death by hitting the train and this fact has also been mentioned in the statement of complainant Ex.OP1/4,  statement of Baljit Singh Sarpanch Gram Panchayat Bushera Ex.OP1/5, statement of Gulab Singh, Member Panchayat Bushera Ex.OP1/6, statement of Shri Leela Singh Numberdar, Village Bushera Ex.OP1/7 and statement of Shri Pardeep Singh son of Dilbagh Singh, resident of village Bushera, wherein it has been clearly mentioned that Harnek Singh died due to sudden arrival of trains from both the sides. It is proved on record that Harnek Singh died due to hit of a train. Further, Harnek Singh was insured for Rs.5,00,000/- for an accidental death under Bhagat Puran Singh Sehat Bima Yojna and he died an accidental death due to hit of a train. The OP number 1 did not pay the rightful claim to the complainant. In the circumstances of the case, we find that the complainant is entitled to get the insurance claim amount of Rs.5,00,000/- from the OP number 1 and by not settling the claim of the complainant, the OP number 1 is deficient in rendering service towards her.

7.             In view of our above discussion, we allow the complaint and direct OP number 1 to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- along with interest @ 7% per annum from the date of filing of the complaint i.e. 29.12.2020 till realisation in full. We further direct OP number 1 to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.10,000/- in lieu of compensation for mental tension, agony and harassment as well as litigation expenses.

8.             This order shall be complied with by OP number 1 within a period of sixty days of receipt of copy of this order.

9.             The complaint could not be decided within the statutory time period due to heavy pendency of cases.

10.           Copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to the records after its due compliance.      

                        Pronounced.

 

                October 8, 2024.

 

 

           (Kanwaljeet Singh)  (Sarita Garg) (Jot Naranjan Singh Gill)

                  Member                       Member                  President