State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Bajaj Allianz General Insurance ... vs Amarjit Kaur And Others on 13 May, 2015
2nd Additional Bench
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
PUNJAB,
DAKSHIN MARG, SECTOR 37-A, CHANDIGARH.
First Appeal No.389 of 2014
Date of institution: 07.04.2014
Date of Decision : 13.05.2015
1. Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd., Registered and
Head Office at GE Plaza, Airport Road, Yerwada, Pune
411006 now through its legal Manager, Navjeet Singh.
2. Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd., Health
Administration Team, Ground Floor, Ashoka Plaza, 32/2,
Nagar Road, Viman Nagar, Pune (Maharashtra) 411014
through its Claims Manager now its Legal Manager, Navjeet
Singh.
3. Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd., Branch at Opposite
Parbhat Cinema, Barnala through its Branch Manager now its
Legal Manager, Navjeet Singh.
. ....Appellants/OPs
Versus
1. Amarjit Kaur, aged about 46 years, widow of Sarabjit Singh.
2. Harkamalpreet Singh, aged about 23 years,
3. Mr. Vishawpreet Singh aged about 21 years, sons of late
Sarabjit Singh,
4. Ms. Surjit Kaur, aged about 72 years, wife of Bharpur Singh
residents of VPO Thikriwala, Tehsil and District Barnala,
Punjab.
5. Harpreet Kaur daughter of late Sarabjit Singh now wife of
Amaritpal Singh Sekhon, Resident of Thikriwala, Tehsil and
District Barnala, Punjab, through her General Attorney Amarjit
Kaur widow of Sarabjit Singh resident of Thikriwala, Tehsil
and District Barnala, Punjab.
Respondents/Complainants
FA No 389 of 2014 2
First Appeal against order dated
08.01.2014 of District Consumer
Disputes Redressal Forum,
Barnala.
Before:-
Shri. Gurcharan Singh Saran, Presiding Judicial Member
Shri. Jasbir Singh Gill, Member
Mrs. Surinder Kaur, Member
Present:-
For the appellant : Sh. R.S. Dhull, Advocate
For the respondent: None
Jasbir Singh Gill, Member
ORDER
The appeal has been filed by the appellants/opposite parties (hereinafter referred as OPs) against the impugned order dated 08.01.2014 passed in CC No.64 of 2013 by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Barnala, (hereinafter in short (District Forum), vide which the complaint of respondent/complainant (hereinafter referred as complainant) was allowed. OPs were directed to pay the insurance amount as per the terms and conditions of the policy along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of death of the Sarbjit Singh till payment and further gave directions to the OPs to pay Rs.15,000/- jointly and severely as consolidated amount of compensation to complainants.
2. Consumer complaint was filed by the complainant under the Consumer Protection Act 1986 (hereinafter referred as Act) against the OPs on the allegation that Sarabjit Singh son of Bharpur Singh resident of VPO Thikriwala, Tehsil & FA No 389 of 2014 3 District Barnala (hereinafter refered as DLI) subscribed an insurance policy from the OPs, known as "Personal Accident Coverage" for a sum of Rs.5,00,000/-. They further, pleaded that DLI died in a motor vehicle accident on 17.05.2011 during the continuation of insurance policy. It was alleged that all the complainants are legal heir of the DLI and lodged a claim with regard to insurance policy with the OPs. The OPs agreed to pay the same towards final settlement of the claim of the complainant. Even OP No.3 compelled the complainants to submit an "Indemnity Bond cum Undertaking"
duly attested by Notary Public on 15.07.2011 and assured that the payment would be made to the complainant shortly. It was further pleaded that a period of more than a year and 6 months had passed but no payment was made to the complainants, in spite of repeated requests and demands by the complainants. Complainants also served a legal notice upon the OPs dated 11.02.2013 and requested for settlement claim but to no use. Ultimately, the OPs refused to settle the claim of the complainant on 22.02.2013. The said act of the OPs amounted to deficiency in services and unfair trade practice. Hence, the complaint was filed with a prayer that the OPs be directed to pay the amount of Rs.5,00,000/- along with interest 18% per annum and Rs.2,00,000/- on account of mental agony suffered by them and Rs.20,000/- as litigation expenses to them.FA No 389 of 2014 4
3. Upon notice the OPs contested the complaint and filed written reply taking legal objections that the present complaint was false vague and vexatious. It was averred that on 17.05.2011 DLI Sarabjit Singh was not insured with the OPs because the "debit card personal accident insurance policy" was not renewed by AXIS Bank Limited. As such OPs had no liability to pay any claim to the complainants. It was further averred that the present complaint was bad for mis-joinder and non-joinder of necessary parties as the complainants had failed to implead AXIS Bank Limited, Pakka College Road, Barnala, as one of the OPs was a necessary party because deceased was the consumer of AXIS Bank Limited and having saving bank account No. 418010100010627 and also a holder of debit card No.4215724180008532. On merits it was admitted that AXIS Bank Limited had subscribed "the personal accident insurance policy" bearing No.OG-11-1901-9930-00000009, for their debit card holders from the OPs. But at the material time of loss, the policy was not renewed by the AXIS Bank Limited. It was further averred that complainant was not the consumer of the OPs as defined under the Consumer Protection Act1986 because the policy was issued in the name of AXIS Bank Limited and at the material time of loss the policy was not got renewed by AXIS Bank Limited. The FA No 389 of 2014 5 OPs also, denied the other allegations as alleged in the complaint and had prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
4. The complainant in support of his complaint had tendered into evidence Ex.C-1 indemnity bond cum undertaking, affidavit Ex.C-2, legal notice Ex.C-3, postal receipt C-4 to C-6 affidavit of Amarjit Kaur, Ex.C-7, power of attorney Ex.C-8 copy of death certificate Ex.C-9 copy of post- mortem Ex.c-10 copy of DDR C-11 and closed their evidence. On the other hand, the OP in support of their versions have tender into evidence affidavit of Sachin Ahori Ex.OP1 copy of policy scheduled Ex.OP2 copy of debit card holder terms and conditions Ex.OP3 and closed their evidence.
5. On the perusal of the above evidence and hearing the arguments from the learned counsels the District Forum had allowed the complaint as per the aforesaid order.
6. Aggrieved by the order of the District Forum, OPs came in appeal on the ground that there was no insurable interest at the relevant time of accident as the policy taken by AXIS Bank was valid from the date of 11.04.2010 to 10.04.2011 and the accident had taken place on 17.05.2011. The claim for accident was not available under the policy, as the policy had already lapsed. It has been stated that due to typographical mistake in para No.4 of the reply the word "not" was not mentioned by the OPs, whereas in the affidavit and in reply on merits it was mentioned that policy was not got FA No 389 of 2014 6 renewed. The District Forum has allowed the compliant only on the basis of para No.4 which is illegal and unjustified and pray for acceptance of the appeal.
7. We have heard the counsel of the OPs and perused the record of the District Forum. None was appeared from the side of the complainant.
8. Undisputed facts of the case are that DLI was having his account with AXIS Bank. It is also not disputed that AXIS Bank has taken a master insured policy covering the personal accident which included DLI also. The point for consideration before us is whether DLI was having any insurance interest at the time of accident or not.
9. Arguments of the counsel of the OP are that the policy was not valid at the time of the death caused due to accident of DLI i.e. 17.05.2011 and the said policy was valid only for the period of 11.04.2010 to 10.04.2011. It was not got renewed by the bank. It was also intimated to the complainants that the policy was not got renewed by the Bank and the Insurance Company had no liability for claim.
10. The complainants have produced the documents regarding death of DLI in accident. However, they have not impleaded the Axis Bank or have not examined any official of its Bank who was master policy holder to say whether on the date of death DLI was duly insured with the OPs.
FA No 389 of 2014 7
11. In this case the District Forum has taken the plea while passing the order that in para No.4 of the reply in preliminary objections that the policy in question was issued in the name of AXIS Bank Limited at the time of loss the policy was renewed by AXIS Bank limited. However, the written reply is not to be interpreted from one line and the entire reply is to be considered. In para No.2 of it, it has been stated that Axis Bank did not got the policy renewed. The complaint has been filed by the complainant and primary onus was upon them to prove that on the date of accident DLI was duly insured.
12. They have also placed reliance on the judgment of National Commission in case of Virupaxappa I. Yaragatti vs. The Senior Branch 2014 (2)CLT, in which the National Commission had held that the suspicion of the typographical error in the policy point will have no bearing on the terms of the policy point. Typographical mistake can be rectified as and when they are noticed. Hence, the revision petition is dismissed.
13. From the above discussion we are of view that at the relevant time the policy was not valid to give insurance cover to the DLI. To rebut this allegation the complainant has not produced any document with regard to the renewal of the policy. The accident had taken placed even after the lapse of the 30 days of expiry of the policy so the ground taken by the FA No 389 of 2014 8 District Forum is not valid and they cannot take any benefit of the typographical mistake.
14. In view of above discussion the appeal of the appellant/OP is allowed and the order of the District Forum is set aside. Consequently the complaint of the complainant is dismissed.
15. The appellant had deposited an amount of Rs. 25,000/- with this Commission at the time of filing of the appeal. This amount of Rs.25,000/- with interest accrued thereon, if any, be remitted by the registry to the appellant No.1/OP No.1 by way of a crossed cheque/demand draft after the expiry of 45 days from the date of dispatch of order to the parties. Subject to stay if any by higher Fora/Court.
16. Arguments in this appeal were heard on 11.05.2015 and the order was reserved. Now the order be communicated to the parties as per rules. Appeal could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of court cases.
(Gurcharan Singh Saran) Presiding Judicial Member (Jasbir Singh Gill) Member May 13, 2015. (Surinder Pal Kaur) PK/- Member