Punjab

Sangrur

CC/113/2017

Suman Raj Bhar - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

Sh. Lovepreet Walia

11 Jul 2017

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR.

 

                                                               

                                                Complaint No.    113

                                                Instituted on:      24.03.2017 

                                               Decided on:       11.07.2017

 

1.     Suman Raj Bhar wife of Late Shri Harjinder Singh;

2.     Gagandeep Kumar minor son of Late Harjinder Kumar, minor under the guardianship of his mother Suman Raj Bhar.

3.     Jyoti Ram son of Sh. Bansi Ram;

4.     Raj Rani wife of Jyoti Ram, all residents of Nehr Kothi, Village Bardwal, Tehsil Dhuri, District Sangrur.

                                                        …Complainants

                                Versus

1.     United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Railway Station Road, Sangrur through its Divisional Manager.

2.     United India Insurance Company Limited, Registered Head Office: 24, Whites Road, Madras through its Managing Director.

3.     Punjab Health Systems Corporation, Civil Secretariat Chandigarh through its Managing Director.

4.     State of Punjab through Deputy Commissioner, Sangrur.

                                                        ..Opposite parties

 

 

 

For the complainant    :       Shri Lovepreet Walia, Adv.

For OPs No.1&2        :       Shri G.S.Sibia, Adv.

For OP NO.3&4         :       Exparte.

 

 

 

Quorum:    Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

                Sarita Garg, Member

                Vinod Kumar Gulati, Member

 

 

Order by : Sukhpal Singh Gill, President.

 

1.             Shri Suman Raj Bhar and others, complainants (referred to as complainant in short) being the legal heirs of Shri Harjinder Kumar have preferred the present complaint against the opposite parties (referred to as OPs in short) on the ground that Shri Harjinder Kumar was the member of Bhagat Puran Singh Sehat Bima Yojna and the Ops number 3 and 4 and they issued card number 9305-3000-3840-3966-0 under which the complainant was entitled to get an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- lacs on account of accidental death from the Ops number 1 and 2.  Further case of the complainant is that on 1.11.2016, the husband of the complainant was coming to his home from Malerkotla side and when he reached near canal bridge at crossing at Dhuri Malerkotla road and in the meantime, a Mahindra Pick Up car bearing registration number PB-13-AF-9558, which was being run at its speed struck with Shri Harjinder Kumar, and as a result of Harjinder Kumar (referred to as DLA in short) fell on the road and sustained multiple injuries on his person and died on the same day. Thereafter FIR number 225 dated 2.11.2016 was registered at PS Sadar Dhuri and post-mortem was also conducted at Civil Hospital Dhuri, The complainant being the nominee lodged the claim with the Ops and submitted all the required documents. Thereafter the Ops appointed surveyor, who visited the house of the complainants on 11.1.2017 and took the signature of the complainant number 1 and printed performa by filling the same. But, the claim was not settled despite repeatedly visiting the complainant and serving of legal notice dated 10.3.2017. 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 amount of Rs.5,00,000/- along with interest and further claimed compensation and litigation expenses.

 

2.             In reply of the complaint filed by the Ops number  1 and 2, legal objections are taken up on the grounds that the complaint is not maintainable, that the complainant has unnecessarily dragged the Ops into unwanted litigation, that the complainant has no locus standi to file the present complaint and that there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs. On merits, it is admitted that the OPs appointed surveyor, but it is denied that he obtained the signatures of the complainant as alleged. Thereafter, the Ops sent a letter dated 28.4.2017 to the complainant and requested to submit the documents which were required for the settlement of the claim, but till date complainant did not submit the documents.  Since the complainant did not submit the documents as required vide letter dated 28.4.2017 as such it is stated that the claim is premature.  The other allegations levelled in the complaint have been denied in toto.

 

3.             Record shows that the Ops number 3 and 4 did not put appearance despite service, as such, they were proceeded exparte on 10.5.2017.

 

4.             The learned counsel for the complainant has produced Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-29 copies of documents and closed evidence. On the other hand, the learned counsel for OPs has produced Ex.OP1&2/1 affidavit, Ex.Op1&2/2 copy of letter dated 28.4.2017 and closed evidence.

 

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

 

 

6.             It is not in dispute that the DLA was insured with the Ops number 1 and 2 under the Bhagat Puran Singh Sehat Bima Yojna and Ops number 3 and 4 issued card number 9305-3000-38490-3966-0 to the DLA. It is further not in dispute that the DLA died on 1.11.2016 and further it is not dispute that the FIR was got registered and post-mortem was conducted and thereafter the complainant submitted various documents.  But, in the present case, the averment of the OPs is that the complainant did not submit the required documents as sought vide letter dated 28.4.2017 such as original death certificate, cancelled cheque of bank account of Smt. Suman Raj Bhar and copy of passbook of bank account of Smt. Suman Raj Bhar, but the complainant has alleged that the same have been submitted during the present proceedings.  Now, the fact remains that the Ops have not settled/decided the claim as the documents submitted during the present proceedings,  and as such, at this stage, we feel that the ends of justice would be met if the Ops are given an opportunity to first of all to settle the claim of the complainant.

 

7.             In view of our above discussion, we allow the complaint partly and direct the OPs number 1 and 2 to settle the claim of the complainant within a period of thirty days of its communication and intimate their decision to the complainant accordingly by registered post. It is made clear that if the complainant remains unsatisfied with the decision of the OPs, then the complainant is at liberty to approach this Forum, if she so desired.  In the circumstances of the case, the parties are left to bear their own costs.  A  copy of this order be issued to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to records.

                Pronounced.

                July 11, 2017.

                                                        (Sukhpal Singh Gill)

                                                           President

 

 

 

                                                              (Sarita Garg)

                                                                   Member

 

 

                                                        (Vinod Kumar Gulati)

                                                                   Member