State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Smt. Kamla Devi vs Smt. Deepika Dahiya on 22 January, 2020
Daily Order STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, UNION TERRITORY, CHANDIGARH Appeal No. 3 of 2020 Date of Institution 23.12.2019 Date of Decision 22.01.2020 Smt. Kamla Devi wife of Sh. Satbir Singh resident of Village & Post Office, Baroda, Tehsil Uchana, District Jind (Haryana). .....Appellant/Opposite Party No.2. Versus Smt.Deepika Dahiya wife of Late Sh.Amardeep Singh,resident of House No.864, Sector 19, Panchkula. Master Navdeep Singh (aged about 2 years) son of Late Sh.Amardeep Singh, resident of House No.864, Sector 19, Panchkula through his other and natural guardian Smt.Deepika Dahiya. ....Respondents No.1 & 2/Complainants Life Insurance Corporation of India, Unit-1, Branch Office code No.163, Jeevan Prakash Building, Sector 17-B, Chandigarh, through its Chief Manager. ....Respondent No.3/Opposite Party No.1. BEFORE: JUSTICE RAJ SHEKHAR ATTRI, PRESIDENT MRS. PADMA PANDEY, MEMBER
MR.RAJESH K. ARYA, MEMBER Argued by:
Sh. Tarun Gupta, Advocate for the appellant.
Appeal No. 5 of 2020 Date of Institution 31.12.2019 Date of Decision 22.01.2020 Life Insurance Corporation of India, Unit-1, Branch Office code No.163, Jeevan Prakash Building, Sector 17-B, Chandigarh, through its Chief Manager (Legal).
.....Appellant/Opposite Party No.2.
Versus Deepika Dahiya wife of Late Sh.Amardeep Singh, resident of House No.864, Sector 19, Panchkula.
Navdeep Singh (aged about 2 years) son of Late Sh.Amardeep Singh, resident of House No.864, Sector 19, Panchkula through his other and natural guardian Smt.Deepika Dahiya.
....Respondents No.1 & 2/Complainants Kamla Devi wife of Sh.Satbir Singh resident of Village & Post Office Baroda, Tehsil Uchana, District Jind (Haryana).
....Respondent No.3/Opposite Party No.2.
BEFORE: JUSTICE RAJ SHEKHAR ATTRI, PRESIDENT MRS. PADMA PANDEY, MEMBER MR.RAJESH K. ARYA, MEMBER Argued by: Sh. Rajeev Sharma, Advocate for the appellant. PER PADMA PANDEY, MEMBER
This Commission would like to dispose of above captioned two appeals, bearing No.3 of 2020 (filed by Opposite Party No.2) and bearing No.5 of 2020 (filed by Opposite Party No.1), against the order dated 15.11.2019, rendered by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, U.T., Chandigarh (in short 'the Forum' only), vide which, it partly allowed Consumer Complaint No.580 of 2018 against the Opposite Parties, with the following directions: -
"16. In view of the above discussion, the present consumer complaint succeeds and the same is accordingly partly allowed. OPs are directed as under :-
to refund the amount of Rs.5,03,060/- each to complainant Nos. 1 & 2 (i.e. 1/3rd share each of the total disbursed amount of Rs.15,09,180/-) alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from the date of disbursal i.e. 9.5.2018 till realization.
to pay an amount of Rs.20,000/- to the complainants as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment to them;
to pay Rs.10,000/- to the complainants as costs of litigation.
This order be complied with by the OPs within thirty days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which, they shall make the payment of the amounts mentioned at Sr.No.(i) & (ii) above, with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of this order, till realization, apart from compliance of direction at Sr.No.(iii) above. Though the liability would be joint and several, but, since the entire amount was disbursed to and received by OP-2, therefore, at the first instance, the execution shall lie against OP-2 and in case the order remains unsatisfied, only then the amount, or any part thereof, would be recovered from OP-1. This direction is passed as the amount is in the hands of OP-2.
It is also made clear that the amount of Rs.5,03,060/-, falling in the share of minor complainant No.2, if recovered, will not be disbursed to his next friend/guardian. Rather, the same be deposited in the shape of FD in a nationalized bank in his name through complainant No.1, being his mother natural guardian, but, she would not be entitled to withdraw the same till the period of minority of complainant No.2 is over without the permission of this Forum. This order is passed in the welfare of the minor complainant No.2, whose interest this Forum is also supposed to watch."
2. The Forum noted down the following facts narrated by the complainant :-
"1. The summary of the allegations are complainant No.1 and 2 happen to be the widow and minor son respectively of late Sh. Amardeep Singh. The marriage inter se complainant No.1 and late Sh. Amardeep Singh was solemnized and out of their wedlock minor son, complainant No.2 was born on 30.9.2016. The case of complainant No.1 is, her husband deceased Sh. Amardeep Singh had died on 4.1.2018 and prior to her marriage with him, he had taken three life insurance policies from OP-1. In the said policies, he had nominated his mother, Smt. Kamla Devi (OP-2) as his nominee to receive the amount in the event of his death. After acquisition of family, on account of marriage, the nomination was not changed and Sh. Amardeep Singh died on 4.1.2018. Complainant No.1 had come to know regarding the nomination and had made communication with OP-1 not to disburse the sum assured in favour of nominee (OP-2) as complainant No.1 happen to be widow and complainant No.2 minor son, i.e. class I legal heirs of deceased Sh. Amardeep Singh. However, OP-1 in spite of the request made by complainants, disbursed the total amount of the policies i.e. Rs.15,09,180/- to OP-2. Information was sought under the RTI Act and after great struggle by way of appeal, intimation was received. The case of the complainants is, OP-1/insurer ought not to have disbursed the amount to OP-2, and it amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. Hence, the present consumer complaint for directing the OPs to refund the amount of Rs.15,09,180/- i.e. the sum assured of the policies in favour of the complainants alongwith compensation and costs of litigation."
3. The Forum noted down the following facts narrated by Opposite Party No.1 to the complaint filed by the complainant :-
"2. OP-1 contested the consumer complaint and filed its written reply. The sum and substance of the reply is, since OP-2 happen to be the nominee of deceased of Sh. Amardeep Singh, therefore as per provisions of the relevant Act, the amount was disbursed to his nominee i.e. OP-2. The receipt of the communication with regard to non disbursement of the sum assured to OP-2 was received, but, the request was not acceded to as the nomination could not have been changed after the death of the assured. No succession certificate was produced. Hence, prayed there was no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on its part. On these lines, the cause is sought to be defended."
4. The Forum noted down the following facts narrated by Opposite Party No.2 to the complaint filed by the complainant :-
"3. OP-2 filed her separate written reply and claimed since she happen to be the nominee, therefore, she is entitled to have the sum assured of her son, late Sh. Amardeep Singh. Objections were also raised of complaint being not maintainable and it was not a consumer dispute. The matter could have been agitated before the competent civil court."
5. The complainants, filed separate rejoinders to the written statement of Opposite Party No.1 and Opposite Party No.2, wherein they reiterated all the averments, contained in the complaint, and refuted those, contained in the written version of the aforesaid Opposite Parties.
6. The parties led evidence, in support of their case.
7. After hearing Counsel for the contesting parties and, on going through the evidence, and record of the case, the Forum, partly allowed the complaint, as stated above.
8. Feeling aggrieved, both the Opposite Parties filed separate appeals i.e. appeal bearing No.3 of 2020 (filed by opposite party No.2) and appeal bearing No.5 of 2020 (filed by Opposite Party No.1), before this Commission, as stated above.
9. We have heard Counsel for the appellant in both the aforesaid appeals and have gone through the evidence and record of the case, carefully.
10. Counsel for the appellant/Opposite Party No.2 (Smt.Kamla Devi) has argued in appeal bearing No.3 of 2020 that the complaint filed by respondents No.1 & 2/complainants was not maintainable as the complaint was based on wrong and misleading facts and the Forum while passing the impugned order failed to appreciate the evidence on record. He further submitted that the insurance company had disbursed the sum assured as per the nomination but the Forum on its own allowed the complaint on the basis of General Provident Fund Rules and Hindu Succession Act, 1956. He further submitted that the Forum has travelled beyond the pleadings while allowing the complaint filed by the complainants, as such, the impugned order is liable to be set aside.
11. After going through the evidence and record of the case, we are of the considered opinion, that the appeal is liable to be dismissed at the preliminary stage, for the reasons to be recorded, hereinafter.
12. Admittedly, Sh.Amardeep (husband of Smt.Deepika Dahiya - complainant No.1, father of Master Navdeep Singh (minor) - complainant No.2 and son of Smt.Kamla Devi - appellant/Opposite Party No.2) took three policies bearing Nos.164564715, 165952234 and 165952235 before his marriage, in which, nominee was registered as Smt.Kamla Devi - mother. It is also the admitted fact that Sh.Amardeep Singh had died on 04.01.2018. It is also not in dispute that after marriage of Sh.Amardeep Singh, name of the nominee was not changed. It is also the admitted fact that the Insurance Company already disbursed the amount of Rs.15,09,180/- to Opposite Party No.2 - Smt.Kamla Devi (now appellant), as per the nomination registered with the company. As per Hindu Succession Act, 1956, mentioned by the Forum in the impugned order, the complainants as well as Opposite Party No.2 (mother) are class I heirs. It is also the admitted fact that before the death of Sh.Amardeep Singh, he had not willed his property in favour of any other person.
13. The only allegation leveled by the appellant/Opposite Party No.2 (Smt.Kamla Devi) is that she is entitled for the full amount of the insurance policy being the nominee. The said allegation leveled by the appellant has no value at all because before the marriage, Sh.Amardeep Singh took the policies and his mother (appellant) was registered as nominee but after his death, his wife and minor son were automatically legally entitled for the claim of the insurance policy. It may be stated here that if the Government Employee not registered his/her nominee as wife/husband & children, after the death of said Govt. employee, his/her legal heirs will automatically be legally entitled for the GPF amount after the death of the said employee. Moreover, after the death of the insured, the Insurance Company disbursed the amount to his nominee i.e. mother of Sh.Amardeep Singh without looking into the interest of legal heirs of the deceased. Not only this, even when Govt. employee dies, his family pension & other emoluments automatically disbursed to his/her spouse and not nominee. So, we are of the view that the Forum while passing the impugned order rightly cited the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court titled as Smt.Sarabati Devi & Anr. Vs. Smt. Usha Devi, 1984 AIR 346 and said that the first class legal heirs were entitled to succeed to the sum assured to the extent of 1/3rd share each and in the capacity of a nominee the amount disbursed or taken or received is subject to claim of all the legal heirs as he had not willed away his property. Therefore, we are of the view that the Forum has rightly said that the sum assured of the three policies was to be apportioned amongst the complainants and Opposite Party No.2 (Opposite Party No.2) proportionately in equal shares. Not only this, before the Forum, the appellant/Opposite Party No.2 being mother-in-law of complainant No.1 and grandmother of complainant No.2, was directed to put in appearance before the Forum to make attempt for the reconciliation of the matter but she failed to appear, as such, the Forum has rightly said that the appellant/Opposite Party No.2 was entitled to 1/3rd share only out of the total disbursed amount.
14. In view of above, the appeal filed by Opposite Party No.2 (Smt.Kamla Devi) bearing No.3 of 2020 deserves dismissal.
15. Now coming to the appeal filed by Opposite Party (LIC) i.e. bearing No.5 of 2020, Counsel for the appellant has submitted that after the death of insured i.e. Sh.Amardeep Singh, the amount of Rs.15,09,180/- was released in favour of Opposite Party No.2 - Smt.Kamla Devi, as per the nomination registered with the insurance company and, as such, there was no fault on its part but the Forum while passing the impugned order directed the appellant/Opposite Party No.1 i.e. Life Insurance Corporation of India alongwith Opposite Party No.2 to refund the amount of Rs.5,03,060/- each to complainants No.1 & 2 (i.e. 1/3rd share each of the total disbursed amount of Rs.15,09,180/-) alongwith interest and also to pay compensation & litigation expenses. Counsel for the appellant prayed for allowing the appeal filed by the insurance company and setting aside the impugned order.
16. The only point for consideration before us is as to whether there was any fault on the part of Life Insurance Corporation of India (now appellant) and the Forum has rightly passed the impugned order. The answer, to this question is in the affirmative. It is, no doubt, true that before his marriage, the insured i.e. Sh.Amardeep Singh took three policies, in which, nominee was registered to Opposite Party No.2 i.e. Smt.Kamla Devi, who is mother of Sh.Amardeep Singh. It is also the true fact that after the death of Sh.Amardeep Singh on 04.01.2018, the insurance company released an amount of Rs.15,09,180/- in favour of nominee i.e. Opposite Party No.2 - Smt.Kamla Devi. According to the plea taken by the complainants in their complaint , she was not aware of the insurance policies taken by her late husband and only after his death, she came to know about the aforesaid three policies, in which, Smt.Kamla Devi, mother of the deceased was the nominee. Thereafter, she wrote a letter on 06.03.2018 (Annexure C-5) to Life Insurance Corporation of India, Sector 17, Chandigarh, the relevant portion of the said letter reads thus :-
"x x x x That if any nomination has already been made before marriage i.e. 20.01.2016, it may please be replaced/amended and name of the applicant i.e. Deepika (Wife) and Nav Deep (Son) may please be added.
It is also requested that no payment be made to any other person without the consent of the Legal heir of Late Sh.Amardeep Singh i.e. the applicant."
In view of the afore-extracted letter, it is clear that complainant No.1 vide letter dated 06.03.2018 had requested the insurance company to change the nomination in the policies and not to make the payment to any other person without the consent of the legal heir of Sh.Amardeep Singh, deceased. Not only this, complainant No.1 sought information under RTI Act vide letter dated 13.07.2018 (Annexure C-6 before the Forum) but it was only revealed by the insurance company that as per their record Smt.Kamla Devi was the sole nominee and 100% claim amount was released in her favour. It is pertinent to mention here that insurance company did not provide the reason for releasing of the amount to the person other than the legal heir, inspite of receipt of letter dated 06.03.2018. Ultimately, complainant No.1 sent a legal notice dated 12.09.2018 to the insurance company, which was duly replied vide letter dated 20.09.2018 (Annexure C-9), in which, the insurance company admitted regarding receipt of letter dated 06.03.2018 from complainant No.1. In its reply, before the Forum, the insurance company (Opposite Party No.1) admitted that the payment of Rs.15,09,180/- was made to the nominee through NEFT on 09.05.2018. So, we are of the view that when complainant No.1 requested the insurance company vide letter dated 06.03.2018, it is the duty of the insurance company to bring to the notice of the legal heirs of the deceased i.e. wife and minor child but insurance company did not do so and on their own released the amount to Opposite Party No.2 after approximately two months from the date of receipt of letter from the legal heirs i.e. 06.03.2018 without giving any opportunity to the complainants.
17. In view of the above discussion, it is held that the order passed by the Forum, being based on the correct appreciation of evidence, and law, on the point, does not suffer from any illegality, warranting the interference of this Commission.
18. For the reasons recorded above, both the aforesaid appeals i.e. bearing No.3 of 2020 (filed by Opposite Party No.2) and bearing No.5 of 2020 (filed by Opposite Party No.1) being devoid of any merit, are dismissed with no order as to costs. The impugned order passed by the District Forum is upheld.
19. In view of dismissal of both the appeals, the application bearing No.3 of 2019 (in FA/3/2020) & application bearing No.17 of 2020 (in FA/5/2020) filed by the appellant for staying the operation of the impugned order stands infructuous.
20. Certified copies of the order be sent to the parties free of charge.
21. File be consigned to the Record Room after completion.
Pronounced.
January 22nd, 2020 (RAJ SHEKHAR ATTRI) PRESIDENT (PADMA PANDEY) MEMBER (RAJESH K. ARYA) MEMBER rb STATE COMMISSION APPEAL No. 3 of 2020 Argued by:
Sh. Tarun Gupta, Advocate for the appellant.
Dated _ 22nd day of January, 2020
-.-
Vide our detailed order of the even date, recorded separately, the appeal filed by the appellant/Opposite Party No.2 (Kamla Devi) and cross appeal No.5 of 2020 filed by the appellant/Opposite Party No.1 (LIC) have been dismissed, at the preliminary stage, with no order as to costs.
[RAJESH K ARYA] MEMBER [RAJ SHEKHAR ATTRI] PRESIDENT [PADMA PANDEY] MEMBER rb STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, UNION TERRITORY, CHANDIGARH Appeal No. 5 of 2020 Date of Institution 31.12.2019 Date of Decision
22.01.2020 Life Insurance Corporation of India, Unit-1, Branch Office code No.163, Jeevan Prakash Building, Sector 17-B, Chandigarh, through its Chief Manager (Legal).
.....Appellant/Opposite Party No.2.
Versus Deepika Dahiya wife of Late Sh.Amardeep Singh, resident of House No.864, Sector 19, Panchkula.
Navdeep Singh (aged about 2 years) son of Late Sh.Amardeep Singh, resident of House No.864, Sector 19, Panchkula through his other and natural guardian Smt.Deepika Dahiya.
....Respondents No.1 & 2/Complainants Kamla Devi wife of Sh.Satbir Singh resident of Village & Post Office Baroda, Tehsil Uchana, District Jind (Haryana).
....Respondent No.3/Opposite Party No.2.
BEFORE: JUSTICE RAJ SHEKHAR ATTRI, PRESIDENT MRS. PADMA PANDEY, MEMBER MR.RAJESH K. ARYA, MEMBER Argued by: Sh. Rajeev Sharma, Advocate for the appellant. PER PADMA PANDEY, MEMBER
Vide our detailed order of the even date, recorded separately, in Appeal No.3 of 2020 titled "Smt. Kamla Devi Vs. Smt. Deepika Dahiya & ors.", this appeal has been dismissed at the preliminary stage with no order as to costs.
2. Certified copy of the main order, passed in Appeal No.3 of 2020 titled "Smt. Kamla Devi Vs. Smt. Deepika Dahiya & ors.", be placed on this file also.
3. Certified Copies of this order be sent to the parties, free of charge.
4. The file be consigned to Record Room, after completion.
Pronounced.
22.01.2020 [RAJ SHEKHAR ATTRI] PRESIDENT [PADMA PANDEY] MEMBER [RAJESH K. ARYA] MEMBER rb