State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Niac vs Harjinder Kaur And Another on 5 August, 2011
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PUNJAB,
SCO NOS.3009-12, SECTOR 22-D, CHANDIGARH.
First Appeal No.721 of 2006
Date of institution: 22.05.2006
Date of decision : 05.08.2011
New India Assurance Company Limited, Gurdaspur through Administrative
Officer, New India Assurance Company Limited, Regional Office, SCO No.36-37,
Sector 17-A, Chandigarh..
.....Appellants
Versus
1. Harjinder Kaur widow of Jarnail Singh;
2. Kuldeep Singh; 3. Lovdeep Singh;
Both minor sons of deceased Jarnail Singh through their mother Harjinder
Kaur as their next friend and guardian.
All residents of Mohalla Dashmesh Nagar, Kala Nangal Road, Batala,
District Gurdaspur.
.....Respondents
First Appeal against the order dated 12.04.2006
passed by the District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Gurdaspur.
Before:-
Hon'ble Mr.Justice S.N.Aggarwal, President
Mrs.Amarpreet Sharma, Member
Present:-
For the appellants : Sh.Vinod Mahendru, Advocate
For the respondents : Sh.Vipin Mahajan, Advocate
JUSTICE S.N.AGGARWAL, PRESIDENT
VERSION OF THE RESPONDENTS
Jarnail Singh husband of Harjinder Kaur and father of Kuldeep Singh and Lovdeep Singh respondents was serving in Punjab Police as SPO since 1994. He was a member of the Group Insurance Scheme against accidental death with the appellants. On 23.4.2003, the life assured was driving a scooter and met with an accident with a buffalo. He sustained multiple injuries. Consequently, he died on 27.4.2003. The report was lodged in Police Station City, Batala on 27.4.2003. The dead body of Jarnail Singh was subjected to post mortem examination. The insurance claim was lodged with the appellants. It was repudiated. Hence, the respondents filed the complaint for insurance claim. Compensation, interest and costs were also prayed.
First Appeal No.721 of 2006 2VERSION OF THE APPELLANTS
2. The appellants filed the written reply. Admitting all other facts, it was pleaded that the insured had not died due to accident. The appellants had appointed Mr.Jagir Singh of Vigilant Detective Bureau, Batala to investigate the claim. He submitted his report dated 27.1.2004 and reported that the insured had not died an accidental death nor any such accident had taken place on 23.4.2003.
3. It was pleaded that Jarnail Singh life assured was admitted in the hospital on 26.4.2003 as a suspected case of poisoning vide CR No.1616. However, in the chemical examination, no poison was detected. There are only abrasion and swelling on his body which were not the cause of death. Since the assured had not died due to accident, therefore, the insurance claim was repudiated vide letter dated 31.3.2004. It was denied if there was any deficiency in service on the part of the appellants. Dismissal of the complaint was prayed. VERSION OF THE SSP, BATALA
4. The SSP, Batala who was respondent No.3 in the complaint (but not impleaded in the appeal) had also filed the written reply. It was admitted that Jarnail Singh was working as SPO on daily wages in the police department and he was a member of the Group Insurance Scheme in the year 2003. The insurance claim submitted by the respondents to the SSP, Batala. It was forwarded to the appellants. It was repudiated by the appellants. Dismissal of the complaint was prayed.
PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE DISTRICT FORUM
5. The respondents proved documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C5. Harjinder Kaur respondent No.1 also filed her affidavit Ex.C6 and supplementary affidavit Ex.C7. The SSP, Batala filed the affidavit of Jagjit Singh, Head Constable as RW3. The appellants filed the affidavit of Ram Kishan, Divisional Manager as Ex.R1. The appellants also proved documents Ex.R2 to Ex.R8. They also filed the affidavit of Jagir Singh, Investigator as Ex.R9.
6. The learned District Forum accepted the complaint vide impugned judgment dated 12.4.2006 and the appellants were directed to pay the insurance First Appeal No.721 of 2006 3 claim with interest @ 9% per annum with effect from 27.4.2003 till the date of payment.
7. Hence, this appeal.
DISCUSSION :
8. The submission of the learned counsel for the appellants was that Jarnail Singh assured had not died by an accident. Therefore, the respondents were not entitled to any insurance claim. Hence, it was prayed that the appeal be accepted and the impugned judgment dated 12.4.2006 be set aside. 8A. On the other hand, the submission of the learned counsel for the respondents was that there was no merit in the present appeal and the same be dismissed.
9. Record has been perused. Submissions have been considered.
10. The admitted facts are that Jarnail Singh husband of respondent No.1 and father of respondents No.2 and 3 was working in Punjab Police. He was a member of Group Insurance Scheme by which Jarnail Singh was insured against death of accident. The respondents have alleged that Jarnail Singh had met with an accident while driving scooter on 23.4.2003. He had suffered multiple injuries and he had succumbed to the injuries on 27.4.2003. The DDR has been proved as Ex.C1. It is dated 27.4.2003 relating to the death of the assured by accident.
11. However, the respondents have not produced any police report relating to the accident which had allegedly taken place on 23.4.2003 which might have been got recorded by the assured or by any other person about this accident immediately after the accident prior to the death of the assured. The respondents have also not produced any document on the file to show if the assured had taken any medical treatment from any hospital either Government Hospital or Private Hospital. Therefore, the story of the respondents that the assured had met with an accident on 23.4.2003 appears to be doubtful.
12. On the other hand, the appellants had produced on the file a report from the Medical Officer, Civil Hospital, Batala dated 26.4.2003 as Ex.R6. This letter was sent by the Medical Officer, Civil Hospital, Batala to the SHO, Police Civil Lines, Batala regarding Jarnail Singh assured that the assured was brought to the hospital by his brother as a suspected case of poisoning. The Medical Officer, First Appeal No.721 of 2006 4 Civil Hospital, Batala had sent another letter on 27.4.2003 Ex.R5 that the said assured had expired at 1.05 a.m. on 27.4.2003 and the information was sent for the knowledge of the police. Since the matter had come to the notice of the police, therefore, the dead body of Jarnail Singh was subjected to post mortem examination (Ex.R7). However, the Chemical Examiner to whom the viscera of the assured was sent had reported that no poison was detected in the samples. Therefore, the cause of death could not be determined. The investigator appointed by the appellants had also submitted his report dated 27.1.2004 Ex.R8 in which he reported that the alleged accident of 23.4.2003 was a cock and bull story. The affidavit of Jagir Singh Investigtor has also been placed on the file as Ex.R9.
13. The above discussion clearly reveals that the respondents have failed to prove if the life assured Jarnail Singh had met with an accident on 23.4.2003 or if his death on 27.4.2003 was the cause of injuries suffered in the alleged accident. Therefore, there is no evidence if Jarnail Singh had died an accidental death.
14. In view of the discussions held above, this appeal is accepted and the impugned judgment dated 12.4.2006 is set aside.
15. The appellants had deposited an amount of Rs.25,000/- with this Commission at the time of filing of the appeal on 22.5.2006. This amount of Rs.25,000/- with interest accrued thereon, if any, be refunded by the registry to the appellants by way of a crossed cheque/demand draft after the expiry of 45 days.
16. The arguments in this appeal were heard on 3.8.2011 and the order was reserved. Now the order be communicated to the parties.
17. The appeal could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of Court cases.
(JUSTICE S.N.AGGARWAL)
PRESIDENT
(AMARPREET SHARMA)
MEMBER
August 05, 2011.
Paritosh