1.
Surinder Kaur aged about 45 years w/o Harbans Lal s/o Mehnga Ram r/o B-7, House No.30, ward no. 7, Mohalla Dhobbian near Arya Samaj Mandir, VPO Sham Chaurasi Tehsil and District Hoshiarpur (Punjab).

2.
Harbans Lal aged about 50 years s/o Mehnga Ram r/o B-7, House No.30, ward no. 7, Mohalla Dhobbian near Arya Samaj Mandir, VPO Sham Chaurasi Tehsil and District Hoshiarpur (Punjab).

Complainants
vs.

1.

The Hoshiarpur Central Co-operative Bank Ltd. Branch Office , Sham Chaurasi Tehsil and District Hoshiarpur ( Punjab) through its Branch Manager.
2.

The Hoshiarpur Central Co-operative Bank Ltd. Head Office, Hoshiarpur 146001 through its Manager.
3.

The Reliance Insurance Company Limited, Rattan Tower, First Floor, Civil Lines, Jalandhar through its Branch Manager.

Opposite parties

1.

The complainants have filed the present complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986 (as amended upto date) “hereinafter referred as the Act.”. In short,the facts of the case are that Sukhwinder Pal @ Sukhwinder Singh had opened a saving bank account no. 5356 with Rs.1100/- on 21.1.2004 with The Hoshiarpur Central Co-operative Bank Ltd. That in case of death, the LRs of account holder were entitled to the amount of Rs. One lac as compensation.
2.

It is the case of the complainants that said Sukhwinder Pal @ Sukhwinder Singh was electrocuted on 1.9.2007. The incident was brought to the notice of the police and Branch Manager of the bank. It is the allegation of the complainants that the Branch Manager of the Bank obtained the signatures of the parents of deceased Sukhwinder Pal @ Sukhwinder Singh on some blank papers with the assurance that the amount of Rs. One lac will be released to them without any delay.
3.

It is further the allegation of the complainants that thereafter the Bank Manager refused to release the amount of Rs. one lac to them. .That the complainants are the legal heirs of deceased Sukhwinder Pal and are entitled to get the amount of Rs. One lac.
4.

OPs Nos.1 and 2 filed the joint reply. Preliminary objections vis a vis maintainability and cause of action were raised. On merits, the claim put forth by the complainants has been denied. It is admitted that Sukhwinder Singh son of Harbans Lal opened account with Rs.1100/-on 21.1.2004 . It is replied that under “Cooperative Bima Yojna Scheme”, the account holder is to be insured from the insurance company. It is denied that Sukhwinder Singh was electrocuted on 1.9.2007 It is also denied that the Bank Manager got the signatures of the complainants on some blank papers. It is also denied that the replying OPs are liable to pay Rs.one lac to the complainants. It is further replied that post mortem report, FIR and other documents were not supplied to the replying OPs nor any claim was lodged. To get the claim, LRs of the deceased have to lodge the claim with the insurance company through bank but the complainants never lodged any claim.
5.

OP No.3 filed a separate reply . Preliminary objection with regard to cause of action was raised. On merits, the claim put forth by the complainants has been denied. It is replied that “Janta Personal Accident Policy” was issued to OP NO.1, valid from 31.5.2007 to 31.5.2008 qua which 20461 account holders were insured and the liability of the replying OP in case of death was Rs. one lac per person. It is denied that Sukhwinder Singh was covered under the said policy or was entitled for the amount of Rs.one lac. The replying OP never received any claim with regard to death of Sukhwinder Singh, from the complainants or from OP No.1,2 . The replying OP shall examine and settle the claim as and when received alongwith necessary documents.
6.

In order to prove the case, the complainants tendered in evidence affidavit Ex.C-1, copy of pass book Ex. C-2, ration card Mark C-3, death certificate of Sukhwinder Pal Mark C-4, legal notice Mark C-5 and reply to legal notice Ex. C-6 and closed the evidence.
7.

In rebuttal, the opposite parties Nos.1,2 tendered in evidence affidavit of Gurvinderpal Singh Ex.OP-1 and cover note Ex.OP-2 and closed the evidence. OP No.3 tendered in evidence affidavit of Sanyan Kapur Ex.OP-3, written statement filed by Reliance General Insurance Mark OP-4 and copy of amended complaint Mark OP-5 and closed the evidence.
8.

The learned counsel for the parties have filed written arguments. We have gone through the written submissions and record of the file minutely.
9.

The OPs Nos.1,2 have admitted that Sukhwinder Singh son of Harbans Lal opened account with Rs.1100/-on 21.1.2004 under “Cooperative Bima Yojna Scheme” and the account holder was to be insured from the insurance company. The OP No.1,2 have raised the plea that the claim was never lodged by the complainants. OP No.3 has also admitted that “Janta Personal Accident Policy” was issued to OP No.1, valid from 31.5.2007 to 31.5.2008 qua which 20461 account holders were insured and the liability of the replying OP in case of death was Rs. one lac per person. The OP No.3 has raised the defence that no claim was ever received with regard to death of Sukhwinder Singh, from the complainants or from OP No.1,2 .
10.

The OPs have raised the defence that the complainants had never lodged the claim with them. Admittedly, the duty is casted upon the complainants to lodge the claim with the Insurance Company through bank-OP No.1,2.
11.

Ld. Counsel for the complainants submitted that Sukhwinder Pal @ Sukhwinder Singh was electrocuted on 1.9.2007 and the said fact was narrated to the police and Branch Manager of OP No.3. The signatures of the parents of the deceased Sukhwinder Pal @ Sukhwinder Singh and of the complainants were obtained by the Manager of OP No.3 on some blank papers with the assurance that the amount of Rs. One lac will be paid to them without any delay.

The complainants visited the OP No.3 time and again for getting the amount of Rs. One lac but the Manager refused to pay the said amount to them, which amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the OPs. It is further submitted that when no claim was settled by the OPs, the complaint was filed in this Forum. However, the complaint was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to file fresh on the same cause of action as per law.
12.

The record of the case perused. The complainants have not produced any document except self serving affidavit Ex.C-1 to prove that they ever lodged the claim with the OPs or visited the Insurance Company or the Bank for the settlement of the claim with regard to death of Sukhwinder Pal @ Sukhwinder Singh . Since the arguments raised by the Ld. Counsel for the complainants , referred to above in para supra , are not supported by any documentary evidence, therefore, the said arguments cannot be accepted. .

The self serving affidavit of Surinder Kaur Ex.C-1 is not sufficient to prove that they ever lodged the claim with the OPs or visited the Insurance Company or the Bank for the settlement of the claim , consequently, it s held that the complainants have failed to prove any deficiency in service on the part of the OPs.
13.

As a result of the above discussion, the complaint is dismissed. However, it is made clear that the complainants are at liberty to lodge the claim with the OPs, if so advised as per law and rules governing the settlement of the insurance claims.