State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Darbara Singh & Anr. vs The Taprian Amar Singh Cooperative ... on 21 August, 2013
FIRST ADDITIONAL BENCH
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
PUNJAB
SECTOR 37-A, DAKSHIN MARG, CHANDIGARH.
First Appeal No.1816 of 2009.
Date of Institution: 21.12.2009.
Date of Decision: 21.08.2013.
1. Darbara Singh;
2. Sardara Singh;
Both are sons of Sh. Lachhman Dass, Rs/o Village Behrampur
Beet, Tehsil Chamkaur Sahib, District Ropar.
.....Appellants.
Versus
1. The Taprian Amar Singh Cooperative Agriculture Services
Society Limited, Village Taprian Amar Singh, Tehsil Chamkaur
Sahib, District Ropar, through its President/Secretary.
2. The Ropar Central Co-operative Bank Limited, Ropar, Tehsil and
District Ropar, through its Manager.
3. IFFCO-TOKIO General Insurance Company Limited, IFFCO
House, 3rd Floor, 34, Nehru Place, New Delhi-110019, through its
Managing Director.
...Respondents.
First Appeal against the order dated
06.11.2009 of the District Consumer
Disputes Redressal Forum, Ropar.
Before:-
Shri Inderjit Kaushik, Presiding Judicial Member.
Shri Vinod Kumar Gupta, Member.
...................................
Present:- Sh. Ashok Bector, Advocate for the appellants.
None for respondent no.1.
None for respondent no.2.
Sh. Varun Chawla, Advocate for respondent no.3.
----------------------------------------
First Appeal No.1816 of 2009 2INDERJIT KAUSHIK, PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER:-
Sh. Darbara Singh and another, appellants/complainants (In short "the appellants") have filed this appeal against the order dated 06.11.2009 passed by the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ropar (in short "the District Forum").
2. Facts in brief are that the appellants filed a complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short, "the Act") against the respondents/opposite parties (hereinafter called as "the respondents"), making the assertions that the appellants are sons of deceased Lachhman Dass, who was member of the Taprian Amar Singh Co-operative Agricultural Service Society Limited, village Taprian Amar Singh, Tehsil and District Ropar and he was having account with respondent no.2-bank. Respondent no.3 floated the scheme for the farmers, who are the members of respondent no.1-Society, that the members who would purchase the fertilizers and DAP of respondent no.3, would be given insurance benefit of Rs.4,000/- on purchase of every bag of 50 kgs. fertilizer etc.
3. Late Sh. Lachhman Dass, father of the appellants, purchased sixteen bags of Urea containing 50 kgs. per bag for a total sum of Rs.2,410/- and also DAP of IFFCO company for Rs.2,808/- and also purchased four bags of fertilizer of IFFCO company @ Rs.241/- per bag, for the total amount of Rs.964/- vided receipt dated 28.07.2007 and lastly on 07.12.2007, he purchased ten bags of urea of the same company for a sum of Rs.2,410/-.
4. As per the above scheme of respondent no.3, the said Lachhman Dass was insured for a total sum of Rs.1.20 lacs on account First Appeal No.1816 of 2009 3 of the above purchases made by him under the plan of respondent no.3, as "Sankat Haran Bima Policy".
5. Said Lachhman Dass met with an accident on 30.01.2008 with a tractor bearing no. PB-43-B-9262 which was owned by Balbir Singh and was being driven by Balbir Singh, owner himself. In this accident, Sh. Lachhman Dass suffered multiple and grievious injuries and DDR dated 02.02.2008 was recorded at P.P. Dalla, Police Station, Chamkaur Sahib and the matter was compromised. Sh. Lachhman Dass remained admitted in Civil Hospital, Ropar from 30.01.2008 to 05.02.2008 and he was discharged from the hospital on 05.02.2008. He remained bed-ridden at his house upto 15.02.2008 and ultimately, succumbed to injuries sustained in the accident, on 15.02.2008. The appellants are legal heirs of deceased insured Sh. Lachhman Dass, being his sons and they lodged the claim with the respondents and respondent no.3 vide letter dated 08.10.2008 demanded some documents to settle the claim and the same were supplied, but respondent no.3 vide letter dated 27.03.2009, illegally repudiated the claim of the appellants due to non-supply of postmortem report of the deceased. Same is illegal. The appellants due to love and affection with their father, did not get the postmortem conducted. The respondents finally refused to pay the claim and harassed the appellants mentally and physically and they are liable to pay the compensation along with the insured amount.
6. It was prayed that the respondents may be directed to pay Rs.1.20 lacs as the insurance amount and Rs.20,000/- as compensation along with interest @ 18% p.a. from 15.02.2008 till realization, with costs of litigation.
First Appeal No.1816 of 2009 4
7. In the written version filed on behalf of respondent no.1, preliminary objections were taken that the complaint is not maintainable, as respondent no.1 is functioning under the supervision of respondent no.2.
8. On merits, it was admitted that the deceased Sh. Lachhman Dass was the member of respondent no.1-Society and he was having his account with respondent no.2-Bank and respondent no.3 floated the scheme and agreed to give the insurance benefit of Rs.4,000/- on purchase of every bag of 50 kgs. of fertilizer etc. It was also admitted that Sh. Lachhman Dass purchased sixteen bags of Urea and DAP, four bags of fertilizer and 10 bags of urea. It was further submitted that the Society has not adopted the said policy. The appellants have failed to bring on record the postmortem report of the deceased, to prove the accident. All other allegations were denied and it was prayed that the complaint may be dismissed with costs.
9. Respondent no.2 did not contest the complaint before the District Forum and was proceeded against exparte.
10. In the written version filed on behalf of respondent no.3, preliminary objections were raised that the complaint is not maintainable. The appellants have no locus standi to file the complaint.
11. On merits, it was submitted that 'Sankat Haran Bima Yojna' is a personal accident policy, covering the purchase of IFFCO fertilizers for the sum insured of R s.4,000/- per bag, maximum upto Rs.1.00 lac, subject to the terms and conditions. Respondent no.3 has launched the "Sankat Haran Bima Yojna" for the farmers as per the terms and conditions of the policy and the maximum sum insured was Rs.1.00 lac. As per the version of the appellants, Sh. Lachhman Dass was discharged on 05.02.2008 and died on 15.02.2008. No postmortem was First Appeal No.1816 of 2009 5 conducted. As per the terms and conditions of the policy, the appellants have not supplied the copy of FIR and copy of postmortem report to respondent no.3 for settling the claim. The claim was rightly repudiated. All other allegations were denied and it was prayed that the complaint may be dismissed with costs.
12. Contesting parties led evidence in support of their respective contentions by way of affidavits and documents.
13. After going through the documents and material placed on file and after hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the learned District Forum observed that for claim purpose, in case of death, the documents i.e. claim form, purchase bill in original, copy of FIR and postmortem report were to be submitted within two months of the event. No doubt, the appellants have placed on record copy of DDR recorded on 02.02.2008 Ex.C-9 along with death certificate, copy of which is Ex.C-10 and also the discharge slip issued by the Civil Hospital, Ropar, yet in all these documents, it is not mentioned that the death occurred on account of injuries suffered by said Sh. Lachhman Dass in the accident. No postmortem was conducted. No notice was served upon respondent no.3 before cremation of the deceased and the requirements as per condition no.5 of the General Conditions of the policy cannot be treated to have been fulfilled. Respondent no.3 was justified in repudiating the claim. The complaint was dismissed.
14. Aggrieved by the impugned order dated 06.11.2009, the appellants have come up in appeal.
15. We have gone through the pleadings of the parties, perused the record of the learned District Forum and have heard the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the appellants and respondent no.3.
First Appeal No.1816 of 2009 6
16. Neither the counsel for respondent no.1, nor of respondent no.2, nor anybody else on their respective behalf appeared at the time of arguments.
17. The appeal has been filed on the grounds that the deceased was discharged from the hospital vide discharge slip Ex.C-10 and thereafter, he remained bed-ridden and ultimately succumbed to injuries on 15.02.2008, so the question of postmortem did not arise. The DDR was recorded on 02.02.2008 and with the intervention of the relatives, the case was compromised and the FIR could not be registered. There was no time to serve notice, when the dead body was lying in the house. The order passed by the District Forum is not sustainable and the same may be set aside, by allowing the appeal.
18. On the other hand, the counsel for respondent no.3 has contended that the impugned order passed by the District Forum is legal and valid and there is no ground to interfere with the same and the appeal may be dismissed.
19. We have considered the respective submissions advanced on behalf of appellants and respondent no.3 and have carefully examined the entire record and other material placed on the file.
20. Admittedly, the deceased Sh. Lachhman Dass purchased 16 bags of urea and also DAP, 4 bags of fertilizers and 10 bags of urea for various sums and the total value of the insurance comes to Rs.1.20 lacs on account of said purchases made by deceased Lachhman Dass. It was also admitted that the claim was lodged. The claim was repudiated only on the ground that the postmortem report and FIR were not supplied and no notice was served before cremation. The deceased Sh. Lachhman Dass received injuries in the accident and he remained admitted in Civil Hospital, Ropar from 30.01.2008 to 05.02.2008. The First Appeal No.1816 of 2009 7 treatment record is Ex.C-11 and Ex.C-12. The Panchayat got the matter compromised vide Compromise Ex.C-13 and it was decided that no action is to be taken against Balbir Singh, driver of the tractor. The compromise was written in Civil Hospital, Roopnagar. Once it is proved that deceased Sh. Lachhman Dass received injuries in the accident, but he got the matter compromised with Balbir Singh, driver of the tractor qua taking criminal action only, but not qua the insurance, then the grounds of repudiation by respondent no.3 are not justified.
21. Ex.D-3 is the 'Sankat Haran (Kisan Gramin Bima Yojana)' and under clause-5, the total and maximum sum insured was of Rs.1.00 lac only. The period of cover was for 12 months from 31st day of purchase of any brand of IFFCO Fertilizer. Under Para-C "General Conditions", Clause-5: 'Claim Procedure and Requirements' is mentioned and in case of death, the claim form, purchase bill in original, copy of FIR, postmortem report were to be supplied. The appellants supplied the copy of DDR, claim form, purchase bill, but only the postmortem report was not supplied. As per the version of the appellants, deceased Lachhman Dass was discharged from the hospital on 05.02.2008 and thereafter, he remained bed-ridden and died on 15.02.2008 as per the death certificate Ex.C-10. DDR Ex.C-9 was recorded and as stated above, the FIR was not lodged as the Panchayat got the compromise effected through Ex.C-13 and the deceased died in his house after about 10 days of his discharge and in those circumstances, the postmortem was not conducted. The respondent insurance company has failed to rebut the evidence led by the appellants, which prove that deceased Lachhman Dass met with an accident and received injuries and he remained admitted in the hospital and in the hospital, the Panchayati compromise was effected. DDR was First Appeal No.1816 of 2009 8 lodged. The respondents have not rebutted or brought forth any evidence on record to prove that deceased Sh. Lachhman Dass did not receive injuries in the accident or the death certificate produced is fabricated. Merely non-producing of the postmortem report itself is not sufficient to throw away the case of the appellants. The postmortem could have been conducted, had the deceased died in the hospital, but in the absence of that, there is nothing to suggest that the deceased has not met with an accident or not died due to injuries received in the accident. The reasons for non-supply of the postmortem report were clear before respondent no.3, but respondent no.3 repudiated the claim, just on the ground of non-production of the postmortem report, which has nothing to do with the death and the cause of death was very clear from the other documents produced. The order passed by the District Forum is against the evidence on the file and is not sustainable.
22. Sequel of above discussion, the appeal filed by the appellants is accepted and the impugned order under appeal dated 06.11.2009 passed by the District Forum is set aside. Consequently, the complaint filed by the appellants/complainants is allowed against respondent no.3 and respondent no.3 is directed to pay Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lac) along with interest @ 7.5% per annum to the appellants from the date of filing of the complaint till realization. Rs.10,000/- are awarded as litigation expenses in favour of the appellants.
23. Compliance of the order shall be made by respondent no.3 within 45 days of the receipt of copy of the order.
24. The arguments in this appeal were heard on 14.08.2013 and the order was reserved. Now the order be communicated to the parties.
First Appeal No.1816 of 2009 9
25. The appeal could not be decided within the stipulated timeframe due to heavy pendency of court cases.
(Inderjit Kaushik) Presiding Judicial Member (Vinod Kumar Gupta) Member August 21, 2013.
(Gurmeet S)