State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Charanjit Kaur vs The Sangrur Central Co-Operative Bank ... on 18 December, 2015
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
PUNJAB
DAKSHIN MARG, SECTOR 37-A, CHANDIGARH.
First Appeal No.959 of 2014
Date of institution : 08.07.2014
Date of decision : 18.12.2015
1. Charanjit Kaur widow of Jagraj Singh son of Dhan Singh;
2. Dalbir Singh (minor) son of late Sh. Jagraj Singh S/o Dhan
Singh;
(Appellant No.2, being minor, through his mother and natural
guardian appellant No.1, Charanjit Kaur).
Both residents of Village Kattu, Tehsil and District Barnala
(Punjab).
....Appellants/Complainants
Versus
1. The Sangrur Central Co-operative Bank Ltd., Branch Sangrur,
through its Manager.
2. The Head Officer, The Sangrur Central Co-operative Bank
Ltd., Sangrur, through its Manager.
3. The Kattu Multipurpose Agriculture Co-operative Society Ltd.
Kattu, through its Secretary.
4. United India Insurance Company, Registered and Head Office,
24, Whites Road, Chennai-600014.
5. United India Insurance Company Ltd., Leela Bhawan Market,
Branch Office, through its Branch Manager, Patiala.
6. United India Insurance Company Ltd., Branch Dhanaula Road,
Barnala, through its Manager.
....Respondents/Opposite Parties
First Appeal against the order dated
14.05.2014 of the District Consumer
Disputes Redressal Forum, Barnala.
First Appeal No.959 of 2014 2
Quorum:-
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Gurdev Singh, President
Mr. Vinod Kumar Gupta, Member
Mr. Upjeet Singh Brar, Member Present:-
For the appellants : Shri J.S. Rattu, Advocate For respondent Nos.1&2 : Shri Mohit Sadana, Advocate For respondent No.3 : Shri S.S. Bhullar, Advocate For respondent Nos.4-6 : Shri Nitin Gupta, Advocate JUSTICE GURDEV SINGH, PRESIDENT :
The appellants/complainants have preferred this appeal against the order dated 14.05.2014 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Barnala (in short, "District Forum"), vide which the complaint filed by them, under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, for directing the respondents/opposite parties to pay a sum of Rs.1,10,081/-, as the insured amount; Rs.1,00,000/-, as compensation for the mental tension, agony and physical harassment suffered by them at their hands; and Rs.10,000/-, as cost of proceedings, was dismissed.
2. The complainants alleged, in their complaint, that Charanjit Kaur, complainant No.1 is the widow; whereas Dalbir Singh, complainant No.2 is the minor son of Jagraj Singh; who was member of opposite party No.3-Co-operative Society and was having account No.365 dated 01.04.2010 with that Society. As being the member of the Society, he was insured by opposite party Nos. 1 to 3, through opposite party No.6; which was the authorized branch of opposite party Nos.4 and 5. The risk covered under the Policy was First Appeal No.959 of 2014 3 Rs.1,10,081/-. When complainant No.1 sought information, under the Right to Information Act, from opposite party No.3-Society, it was admitted that Jagraj Singh was insured and a sum of Rs.5/- was being deducted, per annum, as premium from his account. On 02.08.2011, Jagraj Singh was murdered; regarding which FIR No.110 dated 23.09.2011 was got registered by one Malkiat Singh, ex-Panch, under Section 302/34 IPC in Police Station, Dhanaula. After his death, complainant No.1, as one of the legal heirs, visited the offices of the opposite parties a number of times and requested for the payment of the insurance amount, but they failed to do so; which resulted in mental tension, agony and physical harassment to her.
3. The complaint was contested by the opposite parties. Opposite party Nos. 1 & 2 filed joint written reply, in which they admitted that the life of Jagraj Singh was got insured for "Personal Accident" from opposite party Nos.4 to 6 and the risk covered under the Policy was Rs.1,10,081/-. While denying the other allegations made in the complaint against them, they averred that Jagraj Singh was murdered and his case did not fall under the definition of "Personal Accident"; for which he was insured. No claim was ever lodged with them by the complainants and there was no such deficiency in service on their part. A sum of Rs.47,964/- was still outstanding against the loan of Jagraj Singh upto 01.10.2011. The complainants have no cause of action to file this complaint and are estopped from filing the same by their act and conduct. They are not their consumers and the District Forum has no jurisdiction to try the First Appeal No.959 of 2014 4 complaint. The same is bad for non-joinder and mis-joinder of parties and is barred by time. They also raised objection regarding the maintainability of the complaint and prayed for the dismissal thereof, with costs; being false and frivolous to the knowledge of the complainants and having been filed to harass them.
4. Opposite party No.3, in its written reply, admitted that Jagraj Singh was one of its members and his life was insured; in respect of which Rs.5/- was being deducted from his account. It admitted that the information to that effect was sought by complainant No.1, which was duly furnished. While denying the other allegations made against it in the complaint, it averred that a sum of Rs.47,964/- was outstanding against Jagraj Singh in respect of the account, in dispute, and the complainants, being his legal heirs, are liable to pay the same. They are not entitled to any relief against it.
5. Opposite party Nos.4 to 6 filed joint written reply, in which they gave reply only to the allegations made against them in the complaint. They averred that no particulars of the Policy have been disclosed in the complaint, nor any Policy No. has been given. The complainants never filed any claim with them within the stipulated period of the Policy conditions, or thereafter. As per the allegations made in the complaint, Jagraj Singh was murdered on 02.08.2011, whereas the complaint was filed on 07.02.2014 and, as such, the same is barred by time. The alleged claim of the complainants does not fall within the Policy conditions, as Jagraj Singh had not died accidental death. No consumer dispute has been raised in the complaint and the same is not maintainable. They prayed for the First Appeal No.959 of 2014 5 dismissal thereof, with special costs; being false, frivolous, vexatious, vague, baseless and having been filed with a mala fide intention, by concealing the facts.
6. The parties produced evidence in support of their respective averments before the District Forum, which after going through the same and hearing learned counsel on their behalf, dismissed the complaint, vide aforesaid order.
7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have carefully gone through the records of the case.
8. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the complainants that in fact, Jagraj Singh had died on account of the injuries received by him after fall in the watercourse and, as such, it was an accidental death; which entitles the complainants to claim the insurance amount under the Policy. The complainants, on account of their illiteracy, could not plead that case before the District Forum. He referred to the contents of the FIR, proved on the record as Ex.C- 3, in support of the submissions made by him. He prayed that the appeal be allowed and the complaint be remanded back to the District Forum, for deciding the same afresh in the light of the arguments advanced by him.
9. On the other hand, it has been submitted by the learned counsel for the opposite parties that it was specific case of the complainants that Jagraj Singh was murdered and they produced evidence also in support of that allegation. Under the Policy, in question, only the "Accidental Deaths" were covered and the District First Appeal No.959 of 2014 6 Forum did not commit any illegality, by dismissing the complaint of the complainants.
10. The complainants specifically alleged in their complaint that Jagraj Singh was murdered and regarding that murder, FIR was lodged. No doubt, it is mentioned in the FIR, Ex.C-3, that the dead body of Jagraj Singh was found in the small well of the tubewell bore and when it was taken out, there were signs of injuries on the forehead. The position would have been different, if only those facts had been stated therein, but it is also stated therein that it was not an accidental death, but it was homicidal and how that murder was committed, was narrated in the FIR. In support of the allegations made in the complaint, affidavit of Charanjit Kaur, complainant No.1, was tendered in evidence as Ex.C-5 and she specifically deposed in that affidavit that Jagraj Singh was murdered. Now it does not lie in the mouth of the counsel of the complainants to allege that it was accidental death.
11. The Insurance Policy was proved on the record as Ex.OP4-5-6/2 and a perusal thereof shows that the insurance amount was payable, in case of death of the insured as a result of the injury received accidentally. Homicidal death cannot be said to be accidental death. Therefore, in respect of the death of Jagraj Singh, no insurance amount was payable under the Policy and correct findings to that effect were recorded by the District Forum. There is no ground for admitting this appeal to be heard on merits and the same is dismissed in limine.
First Appeal No.959 of 2014 7
12. The appeal could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of court cases.
(JUSTICE GURDEV SINGH) PRESIDENT (VINOD KUMAR GUPTA) MEMBER (UPJEET SINGH BRAR) MEMBER December 18, 2015.
(Gurmeet S)