State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Smt.Gurmeet Kaur vs Lic Of India on 22 January, 2010
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PUNJAB,
SCO NOS.3009-12, SECTOR 22-D, CHANDIGARH.
First Appeal No.128 of 2008
Date of institution: 13.02.2008
Date of decision : 22.01.2010
1. Smt.Gurmeet Kaur widow of Kuldeep Singh s/o Darshan Singh resident of
243, Rana Road, Amritsar.
2. Kirandeep Kaur d/o Kuldeep Singh through natural guardian mother
Gurmeet Kaur r/o 243, Rana Garden Maqbool Pura, Walla Road, Amritsar.
3. Prabdeep Kaur d/o Kuldeep Singh through natural guardian mother -
Gurmeet Kaur r/o 243, Rana Garden Maqbool Pura, Walla Road, Amritsar.
4. Jashan Preet s/o Kuldeep Singh through natural guardian mother Gurmeet
Kaur r/o 243, Rana Garden Maqbool Pura, Walla Road, Amritsar.
.....Appellants
Versus
1. LIC of India through its Chairman, Northern Zonal Office, Jeewan Bharti,
P.B.630, Cannaught Circus, New Delhi - 110001.
2. Divisional Manager, LIC of India, Amritsar Division-Jeewan Parkash,
Amritsar.
.....Respondents
First Appeal against the order dated 17.12.2007
passed by the District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Amritsar.
Before:-
Hon'ble Mr.Justice S.N.Aggarwal, President
Lt.Col. Darshan Singh (Retd.), Member
Sh.Piare Lal Garg, Member Present:-
For the appellant : Sh.Anil Chawla, Advocate with
Ms.Gurmit Kaur appellant
For the respondent : None
JUSTICE S.N.AGGARWAL, PRESIDENT
Kuldeep Singh husband of Gurmit Kaur appellant No.1 and father of Kirandeep Kaur, Prabhdeep Kaur and Jashan Preet appellants No.2 to 4 (in short "the appellants") had taken the life insurance policy on 26.7.2004 from the respondents for an amount of Rs.10 lacs. He died on 25.4.2005. The appellants being the legal heirs of said Kuldeep Singh lodged the insurance claim. It was First Appeal No.128 of 2008 2 repudiated by the respondents. Alleging deficiency in service on the part of the respondents, the appellants filed a complaint against them in the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Amritsar (in short "the District Forum") for insurance claim. Compensation, interest and costs were also prayed.
2. The respondents filed the written reply. It was admitted that Kuldeep Singh had purchased the life insurance policy from them on 26.7.2004 and that Kuldeep Singh had died on 25.4.2005. It was also admitted that the insurance claim was lodged with them by the appellants which was repudiated.
3. It was pleaded that said Kuldeep Singh was wilfully and fraudulently withheld the correct and material information from the respondents regarding his service, duration of service and the income at the time of taking the insurance policy. He was working in the Shiromani Gurudwara Prabandhak Committee (in short "SGPC"), Amritsar on daily wages @ Rs.70/- per day but he had falsely stated in the proposal form that he was a permanent employee of the SGPC having the income of Rs.1 lakh and having the service of 17 years. He had obtained the insurance policy by way of impersonation and he had not signed the special medical reports. He had also got all the said tests conducted in absentia. These facts have been proved from the report of Forensic Expert.
4. It was also pleaded that the life assured was murdered by Gurmit Kaur appellant with the help of her lover. The news about the murder of Kuldeep Singh had appeared in the newspapers and even the appellant was charged and tried for the murder of her husband namely Kuldeep Singh. Therefore, the repudation was legal and valid. It was denied if there was any deficiency in service on the part of the respondents or if the appellants were entitled to any insurance claim.
5. Gurmit Kaur appellant filed her affidavit Ex.C1. The appellant also proved documents Ex.C2 to Ex.C17. On the other hand, the respondents filed the affidavit of Sachin Kumar, Assistant Admn. Officer (Claims) as Ex.R2. They also proved documents Ex.R3 to Ex.R32. Sh.Balkar Singh, Record Clerk from Shri First Appeal No.128 of 2008 3 Darbar Sahib, SGPC, Amritsar appeared as RW3 who proved documents Ex.RW33 to RW35.
6. After considering the pleadings of the parties and the affidavits/documents produced on the file by them, the learned District Forum dismissed the complaint vide impugned order dated 17.12.2007.
7. Hence, this appeal.
8. The submission of the learned counsel for the appellants was that the appeal be accepted and the impugned judgment dated 17.12.2007 be set aside.
9. Record has been perused. Submissions have been considered.
10. Admittedly, Kuldeep Singh husband of Gurmit Kaur appellant and father of Kirandeep Kaur, Prabdeep Kaur and Jashan Preet appellants had purchased the insurance policy from the respondents on 26.7.2004 for an amount of Rs.10 lacs. It is also admitted that he had died on 25.4.2005.
11. It is also not disputed that the insurance claim was lodged by the appellants and it was repudiated by the respondents.
12. The respondents have taken the plea that Kuldeep Singh had purchased this Insurance Policy by impersonation. In support of this plea, the appellants have placed reliance on the signatures of Kuldeep Singh on the proposal form dated 26.7.2004, Ex.R-19 as also the report of Jassy Anand & Associates (Forensic Consultants) dated 19.8.2006 as Ex.R-39. The affidavit of Jassy Anand Ex.R36 was also relied upon.
13. This submission has been considered. The documents were got examined from the document Expert by the respondents unilaterally without associating any person out of the appellants. Therefore, the appellants got no opportunity to rebut the version of the respondents.
14. Moreover, the science of comparing the thumb impression is almost perfect and exact but the science of comparing the signatures/handwriting is not perfect. For this reason, an insurance claim cannot be repudiated on this report alone.
First Appeal No.128 of 2008 4
15. Another plea of the respondents was that Kuldeep Singh had concealed the material information at the time of filling the proposal form. He represented himself to be the permanent employee of SGPC.
16. Kuldeep Singh represented himself to be having the service of 17 years with SGPC and that Rs.1 lac was his annual income while in fact he was a daily wager earning only Rs.70/- per day.
17. The respondents have examined Shri Balkar Singh, Clerk from Sri Darbar Sahib, SGPC, Amritsar as RW3 who brought the original record and deposed that Bhai Kuldeep Singh (son of Darshan Singh) was temporarily employed in Sri Darbar Sahib, Amritsar. A copy of the office note dated 24.7.2006 was proved as Ex.R33. As per this document of SGPC, Amritsar, Kuldeep Singh was working as Peon on temporary basis @ Rs.70/- per day. He was not a permanent employee of SGPC. Salary statement Ex.R34 also revealed that Kuldeep Singh was getting Rs.70/- per day only.
18. No doubt, it is proved by the respondents that Kuldeep Singh was earning Rs.70/- per day from SGPC, Amritsar and he was a daily wager but the respondents themselves have proved document Ex.R23 issued by Shri Darbar Sahib, Tarn Taran on 7.8.2006. This document proves that Bhai Kuldeep Singh was appointed by SGPC as Sewadar (Peon) vide letter dated 12.03.1987 on the basic pay of Rs.275/- in the pay scale staring with Rs.275/-. Thereafter, he was transferred to Gurudwara Sri Guru Teg Bahadur Sahib, Jind on 6.6.1995 and he was getting Rs.875/- basic pay. He was getting dearness allowance separately.
19. The appellants have also proved certificate issued by Gurudwara Sri Guru Teg Bahadur Sahib, Jind as Ex.C18 which proves that Kuldeep Singh son of Darshan Singh was working in the Gurudwara since 1996 on the basic pay of Rs.915/- and he was getting Rs.1050/- as allowances. This certificate was issued in the year 2007.
20. The appellants have also proved the certificate issued by Local Gurudwara Prabandhak Committee, Amritsar dated 5.3.2007 Ex.C17 which First Appeal No.128 of 2008 5 proves that Kuldeep Singh was appointed as Chowkidar in Bunga, Tarn Taran since August, 2003. He was getting Rs.2100/- per month as salary. He died on 24.04.2005.
21. The appellants have also proved another document issued by Janta Dairy Ex.C15 which reveals that Kuldeep Singh used to sell the milk to Janta Dairy for the value of Rs.7000/- per month.
22. From all these documents therefore, it is proved that the income of Kuldeep Singh was more than Rs.1 lakh per month and he was having more than 17 years of service at his disposal.
23. Moreover, it is clearly proved by the appellants that after filling the proposal form on 26.7.2004 Ex.R19, the life assured had made the payment of the premium amount of Rs.4650/- per quarter for which the respondents themselves have proved the receipts as Ex.R3 to Ex.R5. The appellants have also proved the receipt of the premium as Ex.C3. Moreover, even in the letter of repudiation dated 15.9.2006 Ex.R16, the respondents have not taken any plea if any instalment of premium was not paid in time.
24. If the income of Kuldeep Singh had been Rs.70/- per day only, it could not have become possible for him to make the payment of instalments of the premium particularly when he had the parents, his wife and three children to maintain. Therefore, the respondents have no right to repudiate the insurance claim by taking the plea that Kuldeep Singh had given false information to them about his service, annual income etc.
25. The proposal form dated 26.7.2004 Ex.R19 has been examined. It is duly signed by one Kuldeep Singh. It was for the respondents to have identified the life insured so as to ensure that the person who was signing the proposal form was the same person who was being insured and that he was the same person who got himself subjected to all medical tests. If at that time the respondents were negligent in not taking sufficient precautions to avoid impersonation, they have no right at this stage to repudiate the claim on the ground of impersonation. First Appeal No.128 of 2008 6
26. In view of the discussion held above, it is held that the respondents have no right to repudiate the insurance claim either because of alleged giving of false information of insured or because of alleged impersonation.
27. Admittedly Kirandeep Kaur and Prabhdeep Kaur, appellants are the daughters of Kuldeep Singh while Jashan Preet appellant is the son of Kuldeep Singh. Gurmeet Kaur appellant is the widow of said Kuldeep Singh.
28. Overwhelming evidence has come on the file that appellant Gurmeet Kaur, appellant no.1 had illicit relations with Satnam Singh alias Satta and she with the help of her paramour had caused the death of her husband Kuldeep Singh by electrocuting him.
29. In the present case, a case FIR No.117 of 2005 for the offences punishable under Sections 302/34 IPC was registered against the appellant for the murder of her husband. Her paramour Satnam Singh alias Satta was also impleaded as an accused. Copy of the FIR has been proved as Ex.C6. The case was got registered by Darshan Singh (father of Kuldeep Singh insured). Copy of the judgment dated 29.11.2005 passed by Shri Dhian Singh, Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar has been proved as Ex.C8 in which the appellant has been acquitted as the prosecution could not prove the case beyond doubt and the benefit of doubt was given to Gurmit Kaur appellant and she and her paramour were acquitted.
30. However this court can take into consideration other evidence for determining the role of Gurmit Kaur in the murder of her husband as the judgment of the Criminal Court is not binding on the Civil Court.
31. The respondents have also proved the affidavit of Jaswant Kaur, Sarpanch of village Manochahal Kalan as Ex.R22 in which it is also deposed that Gurmit Kaur had illicit relations with Satnam Singh @ Satta of village Shahbazpur. Both of them had given intoxicant tablets to Kuldeep Singh on the night intervening 24/25.04.2005 and thereafter, he was electrocuted by them. This was generally talked in the area and it was reported not only in the newspapers but First Appeal No.128 of 2008 7 it was also covered by TV Channels. It was also deposed in the affidavit of Jaswant Kaur, Sarpanch that the insurance claim be not paid to Gurmit Kaur @ Simro.
32. Even the news item was published in the Jagbani, Amritsar in which it was reported that a husband was electrocuted by the wife namely Gurmit Kaur in conspiracy with her paramour. Therefore, there is thrust of evidence that Gurmit Kaur appellant was responsible for causing the death of her husband Kuldeep Singh in conspiracy with Satnam Singh @ Satta with whom she had illicit relations.
33. In this context, reference may be made to the provisions of Section 25 of the Hindu Successions Act which reads as under : -
"25. Murderer disqualified.-A person who commits murder or abets the commission of murder shall be disqualified from inheriting the property of the person murdered, or any other property in furtherance of the succession to which he or she committed or abetted the commission of the murder."
34. Since Gurmit Kaur was responsible for the murder of her husband, therefore, under the aforesaid provision, she is not entitled to lay any claim to any part of the insurance amount flowing from the death of said Kuldeep Singh.
35. It was specifically mentioned in the proposal form dated 26.7.2004, Ex.R-19, that Amarjit Kaur, wife of Darshan Singh (mother of Kuldeep Singh) was having good health on that day. There is no evidence on the file to hold if the mother of Kuldeep Singh was dead on the day when he died on 25.4.2005. Amarjit Kaur being the mother and Class I heir of Kuldeep Singh was also entitled to a share in the insurance amount.
36. If Amarjit Kaur had died after the death of Kuldeep Singh, then her share would devolve on the legal heirs of Amarjit Kaur excluding Gurmeet Kaur. First Appeal No.128 of 2008 8
37. In view of the discussion held above, the insurance claim is divided into four shares payable to Kirandeep Kaur and Prabdeep Kaur, daughters and Jashan Preet, son of Kuldeep Singh and Amarjit Kaur, mother of Kuldeep Singh. As discussed above, Gurmit Kaur appellant being the murderer of her husband was excluded from any share out of the insurance claim.
38. In the particular peculiar facts of this case, the interest amount payable on the insurance claim is restricted to Rs.20,000/- which would also be equally shared by the four legal heirs as discussed above.
39. This appeal is accordingly accepted and the impugned order is set aside. The respondents are directed to pay the insurance claim along with interest amount of Rs.20,000/- in the shares stated above. It means Rs.2,55,000/- is payable to each of them.
40. If the respondents fail to make the payment of this amount within two months after the receipt of copy of this order, then they would be liable to pay interest @ 6% p.a. on the insurance amount of Rs.10 lacs with effect from today.
41. If any appellant is minor then the amount of his/her share shall be deposited in any Nationalised Bank and the minor appellant would be entitled to draw the amount on attaining the age of majority.
42. The arguments in this case were heard on 08.01.2010 and the order was reserved. Now the order be communicated to the parties.
43. The appeal could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of Court cases.
(JUSTICE S.N.AGGARWAL) PRESIDENT (LT. COL. DARSHAN SINGH-RETD.) MEMBER (PIARE LAL GARG) MEMBER January 22, 2010.
Paritosh/vr