DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,
PATIALA.
Consumer Complaint No. 57 of 21.2.2017
Decided on: 4.1.2018
1. Jasmeet Kaur wd/o Late Sh.Paramjit Singh, aged 40 years.
2. Gurkirat Singh S/o Sh.Paramjit Singh, aged 21 years
3. Master Jasdeep Singh S/o Sh.Paramjit Singh aged 16 years minor through his mother Smt.Jaspreet Kaur being natural guardian all residentsof H.No.197, Mohalla Katra Sahib Singh, Patiala.
…………...Complainants
Versus
1. United India Insurance Company Ltd. through its Sr.Branch Manager, Leela Bhawan Complex, Patiala.
…………Opposite Party
Complaint under Section 12 of the
Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
QUORUM
Smt. Neena Sandhu, President
Smt. Neelam Gupta, Member
ARGUED BY:
Sh.Surinder Gupta,Advocate,counsel for complainants.
Sh.D.P.S.Anand,Advocate,counsel for opposite party.
ORDER
SMT.NEENA SANDHU, PRESIDENT
Complainants Smt.Jasmeet Kaur wd/o Sh.Paramjit Singh, Sh.Gurkirat Singh s/o Sh.Paramjit Singh and master Jasdeep Singh S/o Sh.Paramjit Singh, through his mother Smt.Jasmeet Kaur being natural guardian have filed this complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986 ( hereinafter referred to as the Act) against the Opposite Parties (hereinafter referred to as the O.Ps.). The brief facts of the complaint are as under:
-
-
-
The ld. counsel for the OP tendered in evidence Ex.OPA affidavit of Smt. Seema Goel, Dy. Manager, Ex.OPB affidavit of Sh. Randhir Singh alongwith documents Exs.OP1 to OP12 and closed the evidence of the OPs.
-
-
7. From the perusal of the copy of the cover note, Ex.C1 and the policy document Ex.OP6, it is evident that Jasmeet Kaur, i.e. complainant No.1 was appointed asnominee by the policy holder namely Sh. Parmajeet Singh, now deceased. After the death of the husband of the complainant, she being the nominee lodged the claim with the OP, but the OP asked her thatin order to get the claim amount she has to provide the succession certificate because the charges of murder had been leveled against her and she was acquitted by the Hon’ble Court on the basis ofbenefit of doubt. However, no such law or rule has been produced by the OP to show that the complainant who was the nominee and had been acquitted from the charges of murder ofpolicy holder by the competent court of law is required to submit the succession certificate for taking the claim amount. Even the bonafide of complainant no.1 is also clear that she has also made the concerned legal heirs as necessary parties to the complaint. In this view of the matter, we are of the view that the OP cannot be said to be right in demanding the succession certificate from complainant No.1 and is liable to pay the claim amount alongwith interest to all the complainants in equal share. The OP is also liable to pay compensation for the mental agony and the physical harassment underwent by the complainants & cost of litigation.
-
- To pay the claim amount to all the complainants in equal share alongwith interest @7% from the date of filing of the present complaint i.e. 21.2.2017 till realization;
- To pay Rs10,000/- as compensation for causing mental agony and physical harassment to the complainants;
- To pay Rs.5000/- as cost of litigation.
The OP is further directed to comply the order within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order. Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of cost under the Rules. Thereafter, file be indexed and consigned to the Record Room.
ANNOUNCED
DATED:4.1.2018
NEENA SANDHU
PRESIDENT
NEELAM GUPTA
MEMBER
