State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Life Insurance Corporation Of India vs Sarabjit Kaur on 21 January, 2016
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
PUNJAB, DAKSHIN MARG, SECTOR 37-A, CHANDIGARH.
Revision Petition No.24 of 2015
Date of institution : 27.05.2015
Date of decision : 21.01.2016
1. Branch Manager, Life Insurance Corporation of India, Chhoti
Baradari, Patiala.
2. Sr. Divisional Manager, Life Insurance Corporation of India,
Jeewan Parkash, Division Office, Sector 17-B, Chandigarh.
.......Petitioners-Opposite Parties
Versus
Sarabjit Kaur d/o S. Darshan Singh, r/o H.No.393, New Mehar Singh
Colony, Patiala.
........Respondent-Complainant
Revision Petition against the order dated
15.5.2015 of the District Consumer
Disputes Redressal Forum, Patiala.
Quorum:-
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Gurdev Singh, President
Shri Vinod Kumar Gupta, Member
Shri Upjeet Singh Brar, Member Present:-
For the petitioners : Shri Puneet Sharma, Advocate.
For the respondent : None.
JUSTICE GURDEV SINGH, PRESIDENT :
This Revision Petition filed by the petitioners/opposite parties is directed against the order dated 15.5.2015 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Patiala (in short, "District Forum"), vide which the application filed by them for summoning the record of the Municipal Corporation regarding the death certificate of Darshan Singh bearing Certificate No.559/11.1.2012, was declined. Revision Petition No.24 of 2015 2
2. The facts, to be taken notice of for the decision of the present revision petition, are that the respondent/complainant, Sarabjit Kaur filed complaint against the opposite parties under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, in respect of Policy No.164511705 obtained by his father Darshan Singh from the opposite parties for a sum assured of Rs.5,00,000/-. She alleged therein that she was the nominee in the Policy and that after the death of Darshan Singh she made her claim under the same to the opposite parties; which was repudiated, vide letter dated 30.3.2013. The opposite parties, in their written reply, took up the stand that the claim of the complainant was repudiated by invoking the forfeiture clause in the terms and conditions of the Policy on the ground that they had been defrauded and during the investigation; which was conducted after the filing of the claim by the complainant, it was found that no one had seen the dead body of Darshan Singh and nobody from the locality attended his cremation and that the death entry was not supported by the "Information Form of Death". In support of the allegations made in the complaint the complainant produced on record the death certificate of Darshan Singh. After the opposite parties entered upon their defence they moved the above said application for summoning the record of the Municipal Corporation, Patiala, regarding the death certificate, so proved on the record by the complainant, on the ground that the same was procured by submitting forged documents. They averred in the application that as per the record of the Cremation Ground, a sum of Rs.240/- was received, as donation, vide receipt No.742 of 2012 and that the date Revision Petition No.24 of 2015 3 of that receipt was changed to 5.1.2012 and the words "Daan Paatar" were changed to "Darshan Singh" and the amount of Rs.240/- was changed to Rs.2,400/- and that thereafter forged Intimation Letter bearing serial No.1574 was submitted to the Municipal Corporation for issuance of Death Certificate. The application was opposed by the complainant by filing reply to the same, in which she denied all the facts alleged therein. The District Forum declined the application by making the following observation:-
"The Death Certificate issued by Sub-Registrar, Births and Deaths of the Municipal Corporation, Patiala is a public record as defined u/s 74 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 and is per-se admission. This does not fall within the domain of the Forum to declare a public record to be illegal, null and void or the result of fraud etc. and, therefore, the proposed evidence to be lead by the OPs may not of any help to the OPs particularly, when the record maintained in the Swarg Dham Shamshan Ghat Society at Tripuri, Patiala is not a public record and is not per-se admissible."
3. We have heard learned counsel for the opposite parties, as the complainant did not put her appearance today, though she had appeared on the last date in person. We have carefully gone through the records of the case also.
4. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the opposite parties that the application for summoning the record of the Municipal Corporation was wrongly declined by the District Forum, though that Revision Petition No.24 of 2015 4 record was very much material for proving that the Death Certificate of Darshan Singh, which has been proved on the record by the complainant, was obtained by the complainant by submitting forged documents and that fact could have been proved only by the production of that record. The records of the Cremation Ground were forged/fabricated and were submitted to the Municipal Corporation for getting the Certificate regarding the death of Darshan Singh. As per the records of that Cremation Ground, the dead body of Darshan Singh was never cremated on that day and Receipt No.742 dated 8.1.2012 was forged so as to show that Rs.2,400/- were spent for purchasing the wood for cremating the dead body of said Darshan Singh. The opposite parties can prove the factum of making of entry of death of Darshan Singh in the Municipal Corporation record on the basis of the forged documents only after getting those documents produced before the District Forum. The District Forum committed an illegality while exercising its jurisdiction by declining the application for summoning the record; which is very much necessary for proving the factum of the forging of documents.
5. It was correctly incorporated in the impugned order by the District Forum that the record maintained by the Municipal Corporation are public record as defined under Section 74 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 and the certified copies thereof are per se admissible. It has failed to make a distinction between the certified copy of an entry in the public record and the entry in the record itself having been made on the basis of forged/fabricated documents. It is not the case of the opposite parties that the certified copy of that Revision Petition No.24 of 2015 5 entry proved on record is not as per the record made by the Municipal Corporation but it is their specific plea that the entry regarding the death of Darshan Singh was got made by forging/fabricating the records of the Cremation Ground. It was wrongly recorded by the District Forum that it does not fall within its domain to declare the public record to be illegal, null and void or the result of fraud etc. No such presumption of truth is attached to the public documents as defined in Section 74 of the Evidence Act, 1872 and the presumption is only regarding the genuineness of the certified copies of those records. The entry in the public record having been made on the basis of forged/fabricated documents can certainly be proved and it was wrongly held by the District Forum that it does not fall within the domain of the District Forum to declare a public document to be the result of fraud.
6. The very basis of repudiation of the claim made by the complainant under the insurance policy was the conclusions which were arrived at by the Investigator appointed by the opposite parties. After that Investigator had gone through the documents of the Cremation Ground and collected the other evidence for drawing those conclusions. The report of the Investigator can only be fortified by the opposite parties by summoning the record of the Municipal Corporation. The District Forum committed an illegality while exercising the jurisdiction in declining the just prayer of the opposite parties for summoning that record.
7. In the result, the revision petition is allowed and the order passed by the District Forum is set aside. The application filed by the Revision Petition No.24 of 2015 6 opposite parties for summoning the record of the Municipal Corporation and, as detailed in the application itself, is allowed. The District Forum is to summon that record and to proceed further with the trial of the complaint. The parties are directed to appear before it on 18.2.2016.
(JUSTICE GURDEV SINGH) PRESIDENT (VINOD KUMAR GUPTA) MEMBER (UPJEET SINGH BRAR) MEMBER January 21, 2016 Bansal