State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Central Co-Operative Bank Ltd. vs Ms. Mohinder Kaur on 10 March, 2017
2nd Additional Bench
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PUNJAB
SECTOR 37-A, CHANDIGARH
First Appeal No.14 of 2017
Date of institution: 10.1.2017
Date of order reserved: 22.02.2017
Date of Decision: 10.03.2017
Central Cooperative Bank Limited, through its District Manager,
Gurdaspur.
Appellant/Op No. 1
Versus
1. Ms. Mohinder Kaur widow of Prem Singh, resident of Village Dult,
P.O. Sirah, Tehsil Batala and District Gurdaspur.
Respondent No. 1/Complainant
2. Tata AIA Life Insurance Company, 14th Floor, Tower Am Peninsula
Business Park, Sanapati Bapat Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai 400 013
Board Tel. No. +912266498000 website www.tataaia.com CIN
U66010MH2000PLC 128403 through its Manager.
Respondent No.2/Op No. 2
First Appeal against the order dated
25.10.2016 passed by the District Consumer
Disputes Redressal Forum, Gurdaspur.
Quorum:-
Shri Gurcharan Singh Saran, Presiding Judicial Member
Mrs. Surinder Pal Kaur, Member
Present:-
For the appellant : Sh. D.V. Sharma, Senior Advocate
Gurcharan Singh Saran, Presiding Judicial Member
ORDER
First Appeal No. 14 of 2017 2 The appellant/Op No.1 (hereinafter referred as Op No. 1) has filed the present appeal against the order dated 25.10.2016 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Gurdaspur (hereinafter referred as the District Forum) in consumer complaint No. 79 dated 17.2.2016 vide which the complaint filed by complainant was partly allowed with the direction to Op No. 1 to pay back/refund the full amount of the claim i.e. Rs. 15 lacs to the complainant alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing the complaint till actual payment and also to pay Rs. 5,000/- as cost of litigation within 30 days. However, Op No. 1 shall be at liberty to take disciplinary action and/or to recover the awarded amount from its delinquent officer/staff.
2. Complaint was filed by complainant under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short 'the Act') against Ops stating that Prem Singh was employee of Op No. 1, serving as Accountant, Branch Kala Afghana. He was insured with Op No. 2 through Op No. 1 under Group Insurance Policy. Prem Singh died on 8.1.2011 during his service. Complainant lodged insurance claim through Op No. 1. Op No. 2 settled the claim and through RTGS paid a sum of Rs. 15 lacs to Op No. 1 to disburse the same to the beneficiary of the insured but till date the amount has not been disbursed to the complainant/beneficiary. The complainant had written a letter to Op No. 1 on 27.4.2015 but Op No. 1 did not disburse the amount, it amounted to deficiency in service. Accordingly, the complaint was filed before the District Forum seeking First Appeal No. 14 of 2017 3 directions against Ops to disburse the insurance claim alongwith interest @ 18% alongwith compensation and litigation expenses.
3. Complaint was contested by Ops. OP No. 1 in its written reply took the preliminary objections that Forum had got no jurisdiction to try and decide the complaint as Cooperative institutions are governed under the Punjab State Cooperative Society Act, 1961, therefore, dispute, if any, should be referred to the Arbitrator; there was no relationship of consumer and service provider between complainant and Op No. 1 and that the complainant had no locus- standi to file the present complaint because Prem Singh had not paid/made his contribution for the purchase of the policy. On merits, it was again stated that the policy in question was not a group insurance policy, rather, it was protected house building loan. The amount was not paid to the complainant/beneficiary because the premium which was to be paid by employee was paid by the Bank. However, on compassionate grounds, the matter was referred to the Board of Directors of the bank and the matter is still pending there. There is no deficiency in service on the part of this Op. Complaint is without merit, it be dismissed.
4. Op No. 2 in its reply took the preliminary objections that the present complaint is not maintainable against this Op as no cause of action has arisen to the complainant to file this complaint as the contract of insurance was between Op Nos. 1 & 2. Op No. 1 had obtained group term life insurance policy bearing No. GMDDE00552 for its employees Prem Singh s/o Makhan Singh (DLA) working with Op No. 1 was insured with Op No. 2 for sum insured of Rs. 15 lacs. First Appeal No. 14 of 2017 4 Op No. 2 had received the application for death claim on 23.5.2011. A letter dated 27.6.2012 was written by Op No. 1 to Op No. 2 and requested to disburse the claim amount and made the claim benefits payment directly to Op No. 1. Op No. 1 had further undertaken to pay the entire claim amount to the beneficiary of the deceased. The claim was investigated by Op No. 2 and vide letter dated 7.4.2015 Op No. 1 was intimated that the claim was accepted by Op No. 2 and through NEFT a sum of Rs. 15,00,000/- was paid in the account of Op No. 1 i.e. A/c No. 494010200001106 on 30.3.2015 as full and final settlement under the policy. Once the claim was paid then no cause of action to file the complaint against Op No. 2.
5. Before the District Forum, the parties led their respective evidence.
6. In support of his allegations, the complainant had tendered into evidence affidavit of complainant Ex. C-1 and documents Exs. C-2 to C-4. On the other hand, the Op No. 1 had tendered into evidence affidavit of Manbir Singh Khehra, D.M. Ex. Op-1/1 and document Ex. Op-1/2. Op No. 2 had tendered affidavit of Harsimran Singh, Manager Legal Ex. Op-W-2/A and documents Exs. Op-2/1 to Op-2/3.
7. After going through the allegations in the complaint, written version filed by the OPs, evidence and documents brought on the record, the complaint was accepted as referred above.
8. Aggrieved with the order passed by the learned District Forum, appellant/OP No.1 has filed the present appeal. First Appeal No. 14 of 2017 5
9. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant Sh. D.V. Sharma, Senior Advocate.
Misc. Application No. 60 of 2017
10. Alongwith the appeal, there is an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act to condone the delay of 6 days. It has been stated that due to official formalities, there was delay of 6 days in filing the appeal. Keeping in view the contentions as stated in the application and that the delay is just 6 days, the delay is hereby condoned.
MAIN CASE
11. It has been argued by the counsel for the appellant that the complainant does not fall under the definition of the consumer and it has been wrongly decided that the complainant is a consumer. Then there is a bar of jurisdiction under Section 82 of the Act of the Punjab Cooperative Societies Act, 1961 and that the complaint is barred by limitation and that the Civil Court is competent to decide the complaint. With regard to the fact that the complainant is a consumer, it is an admitted fact that Prem Singh husband of the complainant was an employee with Op No. 1. Op No. 1 had taken a group insurance policy i.e. Group Term Life Insurance Policy bearing No. GMDDE00552 for its employees including Prem Singh s/o Makhan Singh (DLA). It is an admitted fact that Prem Singh died during the policy period and his claim was lodged with Op No. 2 through Op No. 1, which was settled on the undertaking of Op No. 1 to disburse the amount to the beneficiary of the deceased, the amount was transferred to the account of Op No. 1 through NEFT and now Op No. First Appeal No. 14 of 2017 6 1 is not disbursing the claim to the complainant/beneficiary on the plea that no premium was paid. The features of the policy have not been stated by Op No. 1. In case as a welfare scheme, Op No. 1 had taken a policy for its employees from Op No. 2 and paid the premium, he was under the scheme and in case the husband of the complainant was covered, the premium will be taken as a premium from the complainant because this facility was given by the Bank for all its employees and once the claim has been received by Op No. 1 from Op No. 2, the claim is not being paid by Op No. 1 when they had received the claim from Op No. 2 after giving the undertaking to disburse the same to its beneficiary then they have no right to withhold that amount and in case Op No. 1 had withheld the legal claim of the complainant, it amounts to deficiency in service, therefore, the complainant is a beneficiary of the insured is covered under the definition of consumer.
12. The next point taken is that the procedure has been provided under Section 82 of the Punjab Cooperative Societies Act, therefore, the matter should have been referred under that Act and that the District Forum did not have the jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. However, under Section 3 of the Act, additional remedy has been provided under the CP Act, therefore, even if there is a bar of jurisdiction of the Civil Court, in view of Section 3 of the Act, the District Forum has the jurisdiction to entertain and decide the complaint to which the counsel for the appellant could not controvert.
13. With regard to limitation, in case Op No. 1 has received the claim from Op No. 2 till the claim is paid, it will be a continuous First Appeal No. 14 of 2017 7 cause of action and during the course of arguments, the counsel for the appellant/Op no. 1 could not prove how the complaint is barred by limitation. In case after receiving the claim amount from Op no. 1, they are not disbursing the same to the complainant. Therefore, we are of the opinion that complaint filed by the complainant is within limitation.
14. With regard to referring the matter to the Civil Court, in case there is deficiency in service on the part of Op No. 1 and it is a consumer dispute then Consumer Forums/Commission are competent to decide the matter. The dispute is only with regard to payment of the insured amount to the complainant/beneficiary. No complicated questions of law and facts are involved, which may require to refer the matter to the Civil Court, therefore, we are of the opinion that District Forum was justified and was competent to entertain and decide the complaint.
15. No other point was raised.
16. We are of the opinion that the counsel for the appellant was unable to make any point for admission of the appeal, therefore, the appeal of the appellant/Op No. 1is hereby dismissed in limine.
17. The appellant/Op No. 1 had deposited an amount of Rs. 25,000/- with this Commission in the appeal. This amount with interest accrued thereon, if any, be remitted by the registry to the respondent No.1/complainant by way of a crossed cheque/demand draft after the expiry of 90 days, from the despatch of the order to the parties; subject to stay, if any, by the higher Fora/Court. First Appeal No. 14 of 2017 8
18. Remaining amount, if any due, shall be paid by the appellant to the respondent No. 1/complainant within 30 days from the receipt of the copy of the order.
19. Order be communicated to the parties as per rules.
(Gurcharan Singh Saran)
Presiding Judicial Member
March 10, 2017. (Surinder Pal Kaur)
as Member