State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Amrit Pal Singh Son Of Smt. Jaswinder ... vs M/S Bajaj Allianz General Insurance ... on 29 November, 2012
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PUNJAB,
SECTOR 37-A, DAKSHIN MARG, CHANDIGARH
First Appeal No. 1301 of 2008
Date of institution : 14.11.2008
Date of Decision : 29.11.2012
Amrit Pal Singh son of Smt. Jaswinder Kaur wife of Gurcharan Singh, resident of
Moga Road, Kothey Near Bhaiana Gurudwara Sahib, Bhagta Bhai Ka, Tehsil
Phul, Distt. Bhatinda.
....Appellant.
Versus
1. M/s Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited, HQ GE Plaza,
Airport Road, Yarwada, Pune 471006, through its Chairman/Managing
Director.
2. Golden Multi Services Club Ltd., Ludhiana through its Branch Manager.
3. Branch Manager, Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited,
The Mall, Bathinda.
...Respondents.
2nd Appeal
First Appeal No. 4 of 2010
Date of institution : 4.1.2010
1. Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited, HQ GE Plaza, Airport
Road, Yarwada, Pune 471006, through its Chairman/Managing Director.
2. Branch Manager, Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited, The
Mall, Bathinda
(through Praman Preet Singh Sr. Exe. (legal), Bajaj Allianz General
Insurance Company Limited, SCO No. 139-140, Sector 8-C, Ist Floor,
Chandigarh)
....Appellants.
Versus
1. Amrit Pal Singh son of Smt. Jaswinder Kaur wife of Sh. Gurcharan Singh,
resident of Moga Road, Kothey Near Bhaiana Gurudwara Sahib, Bhagta Bhai Ka,
Tehsil Phul, Distt. Bhatinda.
2. M/s Golden Multi Services Club Ltd., Ludhiana through its Branch
Manager.
...Respondents.
First Appeals against the order dated 23.9.2008 of the
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Bathinda.
Before:-
Shri Piare Lal Garg, Presiding Member.
Shri Jasbir Singh Gill, Member.
Present in F.A. No. 1301 of 2008:-
For the appellant : None.
For respondent Nos.1&3 : Sh. Rajneesh Malhotra, Advocate
For respondent No.2 : Sh. Sandeep Suri, Advocate
First Appeal No. 1301 of 2008 2
PIARE LAL GARG, PRESIDING MEMBER:
This order will dispose of two appeals i.e. First Appeal No. 1301 of 2008 (Amrit Pal Singh Vs. M/s Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited) and First Appeal No. 4 of 2010 (M/s Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited & anr. Vs. Amrit Pal Singh and anr.). Both the appeals are cross appeals and against the impugned order dated 23.9.2008 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Bathinda(in short the "District Forum") and are disposed off in a single order. The facts are taken from 'First Appeal No. 1301 of 2008' and the parties would be referred by their status in this appeal.
2. The facts of the case are that Smt. Jaswinder Kaur-mother of the appellant was insured with respondent No. 3 vide policy No. 6-06- 2401-9960-00000003 06-07-2401-9961-00004705/2775 for the period of 23.6.2006 to 22.6.2011 for Rs. 5 lacs under Personal Accident Insurance Policy. The appellant was nominated as beneficiary by his mother. The insured was murdered and died on 10.5.2007 after the death of his mother, the appellant has submitted the claim before respondent No. 3 but the same was not paid to him. A notice dated 29.11.2007 was also served by him upon respondent No. 1. On the asking of respondent No. 1 vide letter dated 21.12.2007, the required documents were also submitted to respondent No. 1 by the appellant vide letter dated 2.2.2008 but despite repeated requests made by the appellant, the claim was not paid to the appellant. The complaint was filed with the prayer that the respondents were deficient in service and it was prayed that the respondents may be directed to pay Rs. 5 lacs with interest @ 18% per annum from the date of purchase of the policy till realization and Rs. 1 lac as compensation for mental, physical tension and agony suffered by the appellant.
3. Upon notice, respondents No. 1 & 3 filed joint reply and the issuance of the insurance policy and death were not denied. It was First Appeal No. 1301 of 2008 3 pleaded that the required documents were not supplied by the appellant despite repeated requests, as such, the claim of the appellant was not decided and the complaint was pre-mature. The appellant had no locus- standi and cause of action to file the complaint. It was further pleaded that the appellant was accused of killing his mother, as such, he was not entitled for any compensation. There was no deficiency in service on the part of the answering respondents. Appellant and his father Sh. Gurcharan Singh had been named as murderers of Jaswinder Kaur insured. It was prayed that the complaint may be dismissed.
4. Respondent No. 2 was proceeded against ex-parte before the District Forum vide interim order dated 25.6.2008.
5. The complaint of the appellant was accepted by the District Forum and the respondents were directed to decide the claim of the appellant within 60 days from the date of receipt of the copy of the order and to pay the amount, if any, to the legal heirs of deceased in accordance with law of inheritance. Rs. 2,000/- was awarded as litigation expenses.
6. The appeal is filed by the appellant on the grounds that the order of the District Forum was wrong for the direction of payment of the claim to the legal heirs of the deceased whereas the appellant was only nominee appointed/nominated by Smt. Jaswinder Kaur deceased and he is only entitled for the claim, as such, the other legal heirs are not entitled.
7. There is no dispute that deceased Jaswinder Kaur was insured with respondent No. 3 for an amount of Rs. 5 lacs for the period of 23.6.2006 to 22.6.2011 through respondent No. 2 under Group Personal Accident Insurance Policy. There is also no dispute that insured Jaswinder Kaur died on 10.5.2007. It is also not disputed that the claim was lodged by the appellant with respondent No. 3 through respondent No. 2. The claim was not decided by respondents No. 1 & 3 on the ground that the required First Appeal No. 1301 of 2008 4 documents were not supplied by the appellant despite letters written by respondents No. 1 & 3 to the appellant.
8. The complaint was filed by the appellant and respondents No. 1 & 3 were directed by the District Forum to decide the claim submitted by the appellant within 60 days from the receipt of the copy of the order but till date the counsel for respondents No. 1 & 3 has not informed the Commission regarding the fate of the claim.
9. The present appeal is filed by the appellant only for the modification of the order that he alone is entitled for the claim amount being nominee nominated by his mother Jaswinder Kaur in the policy and no other legal heir is entitled for the same.
10. As per the law, the nominee is only custodian and agent, who was authorized to receive the amount on payment for which insurer got a valid discharge of its liability under the policy. A nominee cannot be treated as being equivalent to an heir or legatee. It was held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case Challamma versus Tilaga & Ors.", 2009 (3) RCR (Civil) 944 in paras No. 11 & 12 as follows:-
"11. There is another aspect of the matter which cannot be lost sight of Section 39 of the Insurance Act, 1938 enables the holder of a policy, while effecting the same, to nominate a person to whom the money secured by the policy shall be paid in the event of his death. The effect of such nomination was considered by this Court in Vishin N. Khanchandani & Anr. V. Vidya Lachmandas Khanchandani & Anr., 2000(4) RCR (Civil) 95 : [(2006) 6 SCC 724] wherein the law has been laid down in the following terms :
"....The nomination only indicated the hand which was authorized to received the amount on the payment of which the insurer got a valid discharge of its liability under the policy. The policy-holder continued to have an interest in the policy during his lifetime and the nominee acquired no sort of interest in the policy during the lifetime of the policyholder. On the death of the policy-holder, the amount payable under the policy became part of his estate which was governed by the law of succession applicable to him. Such succession may be testamentary or intestate. Section 39 did not operate as a third kind of succession which could be styled as a statutory testament. A nominee could not be treated as being equivalent to an heir or legatee. The amount of interest under the policy First Appeal No. 1301 of 2008 5 could, therefore, be claimed by the heirs of the assured in accordance with the law of succession governing them."
In Smt. Sarbati Devi & Anr. V. Smt. Usha Devi [(1984) 1 SCC 424], this Court held :
"4. At the outset it should be mentioned that except the decision of the Allahabad High Court in Kesari Devi v. Dharma Dev on which reliance was placed by the High Court in dismissing the appeal before it and the two decisions of the Delhi High Court in S. Fauza Singh v. Kuldip Sing and Uma Sehgal v. Dwarka Dass Sehgal in all other decisions cited before us the view taken is that the nominee under Section 39 of the Act is nothing more than an agent to receive the money due under a life insurance policy in the circumstances similar to those in the present case and that the money remains the property of the assured during his lifetime and on his death forms part of his estate subject to the law of succession applicable to him...."
12. In view of the fact that the appellant was one of the heirs and legal representatives of the deceased Subramanya, there cannot be any doubt whatsoever that she had been rightly held to be entitled to 1/4th share in the estate of the deceased Subramanya."
11. In view of the above discussion and as per above proposition of law, we are of the opinion that the order passed by the learned District Forum is legal and valid and there is no ground to interfere with the same. The appeal being without any merit is dismissed and the impugned order of the District Forum is affirmed and upheld. No order as to costs. First Appeal No. 4 of 2010 Misc. Application No. 7 of 2010 for delay
12. Applicant has filed this application for condoning the delay of 421 days in filing the present appeal.
13. First Appeal No. 1301 of 2008 was filed against the appellant- Bajaj Allinz General Ins. Co. Ltd. on 14.11.2008 and Sh. Rajneesh Malhotra, Advocate was appeared on behalf of the appellant on 1.9.2009 but the First Appeal No. 4 of 2010 was filed on 4.1.2010 when it was very much in the knowledge of the appellant that First Appeal No. 1301 of 2008 is already filed by the respondent-Amrit Pal Singh against the order dated 23.9.2008 of the District Forum, Bathinda.
First Appeal No. 1301 of 2008 6
14. The present application for condonation of delay is filed on the grounds that the copy of the order dated 23.9.2008 was received by the applicant on 8.10.2008 to the counsel for the applicant, who further sent the same to the local office of the applicants at Bathinda, thereafter the case was put up for further action for filing the appeal and the same was sent to the Regional Office at Chandigarh to decide whether the appeal was to be filed or not under the order in appeal. The appeal is gone through many channels before the approval could be taken for filing the appeal.
15. But no date is mentioned in the grounds of the application for condonation of delay when the copy of the order was received by the applicant from the counsel and when the same was sent to the Bathinda office as well as Regional Office at Chandigarh. The grounds mentioned in the application for condonation of delay is vague and without any basis, which are not believable.
16. So as per the above discussion, it is clear that the approach of the applicants is casual and the same cannot be accepted because they were well aware of the period of limitation available for filing the appeal. Such attitude cannot afford good and sufficient cause for condonation of delay in filing the appeal. No cogent and reasonable cause is shown in the application for the acceptance of the application for condonation of delay. Reasons given in the application are inadequate and insufficient to condone the huge delay of 421 days.
17. Appeal is to be filed within 30 days and special privilege cannot be granted to the applicants/appellants i.e. Government Departments or any Company. Delay of each day is to be explained. If sufficient cause is shown the delay of even longer period may be condoned but where no sufficient cause is shown for filing the appeal belatedly, the delay of even one or two days may not be condoned. The First Appeal No. 1301 of 2008 7 delay of 421 days is quite longer and no sufficient cause for condonation of delay is given by the applicants.
18. Although liberal approach is expected from the Court while dealing with the question of condonation of delay yet the fact cannot be ignored that law of limitation and its provisions cannot be ignored in casual manner. It is the duty of the Court to keep in mind whether a valuable right has accrued to the respondent due to non-filing of the appeal in time and in case any valuable right has accrued, the Court should be reluctant to condone the delay. The version of the applicants is that the appeal file had to pass through various offices of the applicants for seeking the approval to file the appeal but in the application the explanation furnished by the applicants is not a sufficient cause for not filing the appeal within the time as prescribed in the Limitation Act. Law of limitation does not give any special exemption or indulgence in time limit for relaxation of time limits for a Government Department or any other Limited Company.
19. In its judgment, the Hon'ble National Commission in case "Delhi Development Authority Vs Surinder Kaur Kohli", III(2010) CPJ- 283(NC), relying upon the authority of the Hon'ble Supreme Court i.e. State Bank of India Vs B.S. Agriculture Industries" (I) (2009) CTJ-481 (Supreme Court) (CP), observed in Para-8(relevant portion) as follows:-
"8. It is for the Administrative Head of the DDA (or, his delegate/s) to look into matters which pertain to its core functions, fix responsibility for undue delays, take punitive action in appropriate cases and, most important, introduce systemic changes to minimize, if not eliminate altogether, such delays because these delays adversely affect the interests of thousands of citizens who come to the DDA for purposes relating to a basic human need like housing. These delays also breed corruption and bring disrepute to the Authority".
20. Again, the Hon'ble National Commission in case "HUDA Vs Krishana Devi", III (2010) CPJ-213 (NC), took the similar view and upheld First Appeal No. 1301 of 2008 8 the view taken by the State Commission, holding that the Department of Government or Companies cannot be shown any special indulgence in the matter of limitation and asked the authorities to book the officials responsible for delay in filing the appeal, causing great financial loss to the State Exchequer.
21. As discussed above, the delay has not been properly explained, therefore, the application for condonation of delay is dismissed.
Main Case
22. As the application for condonation of delay has been dismissed, therefore, First Appeal No. 4 of 2010 is also dismissed.
23. The arguments in these appeals were heard on 27.11.2012 and the orders were reserved. Now the orders be communicated to the parties.
24. The appellants in First Appeal No. 4 of 2010 had deposited an amount of Rs. 25,000/- with this Commission at the time of filing the appeal. This amount of Rs. 25,000/- with interest accrued thereon, if any, be remitted by the registry to appellant No. 2 by way of a crossed cheque/demand draft after the expiry of 45 days under intimation to the learned District Forum and to the appellants. However, the appellants will paying the amount as per the order of District Forum dated 23.9.2008 to the legal heirs of the deceased.
25. The appeals could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of Court cases.
(Piare Lal Garg)
Presiding Member
November 29, 2012. (Jasbir Singh Gill)
as Member
First Appeal No. 1301 of 2008 9