Punjab

Faridkot

CC/18/60

Sukhjit Kaur - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s B4S Solutions Private Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Atul Gupta

15 May 2019

ORDER

 DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, FARIDKOT

 

C. C. No. :                 60 of 2018

Date of Institution:       4.04.2018

Date of Decision :      15.05.2019

 

1. Sukhjit Kaur aged about 57 years, w/o Survinder Pal Singh son of Malha Singh;
2. Survinder Pal Singh aged about 55 years son of Malha Singh;

Both residents of Village Baggeana, P.S. Bajakhana, Tehsil and  District Faridkot.

...Complainant

Versus

 

1. M/s B4S Solutions Private Limited, S-40, (Harsha Compound), Site -2, Loni road, Industrial Area, Mohan Nagar, Gaziabad, Uttar Pradesh 201010 through its Authorized Signatory.
2. M/s Bharti AXA General Insurance Company Limited,  Pearl Plaza, K-24, Plot No. ABCD & E, 2^nd Floor, Sector 18, Noida (UP) 201301 through its Authorized Signatory.

.....Opposite Parties

Complaint under Section 12 of the

Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

 

Quorum: Sh. Ajit Aggarwal, President,

               Smt Param Pal Kaur, Member.

 

Present: Sh Atul Gupta, Ld Counsel for Complainant,

          

cc no.- 60 of 2018

 

                     Sh Ashu Mittal, Ld Counsel for OP-1,

            Sh Neeraj Maheshwary, Ld Counsel for OP-2.

 

ORDER

(Ajit Aggarwal, President)

                                         Complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against OPs seeking directions to OPs to make payment of insurance claim with interest and for further directing OPs to pay compensation for deficiency in service, harassment, inconvenience, mental agony alongwith litigation expenses of Rs.22,000/-.

2                                              Briefly stated, the case of the complainants is that deceased Lovepreet Singh was the son of complainants, who was having diploma in Electrical Engineering and was also working as Mechanic for Telephone Towers under OP-1 at monthly salary of Rs.9000/-. It is submitted  that Lovepreet Singh son of complainants died in a road accident on 1.02.2014 in Mohali and FIR to this effect bearing no.38 under section 279/337/427/304-A IPC was got recorded in Police Station, Mohali on 27.03.2014. intimation regarding death of Lovepreet Singh also given to OP-1. It is further submitted that complainants came to know that their son Lovepreet Singh was insured with OPs,  when OP-1 gave particulars of Group Personal Accidental Policy to complainant no.2 which disclosed that Lovepreet Singh was insured with Op-2 for the period from 20.05.2013 to 9.05.2014. Death of Lovepreet Singh occurred during the subsistence of said insurance policy. OPs never supplied any policy documents to complainants or to

cc no.- 60 of 2018

insured person. Thereafter, complainants approached OPs and requested them to make payment of insurance claim on account of death of their son, but they did not pay any heed to genuine requests of complainant, which amounts to deficiency in service and has caused harassment and mental agony to them. They have prayed for accepting the present complaint alongwith compensation and litigation expenses besides the main relief. Hence, the present complaint.

3                                                          The counsel for complainant was heard with regard to admission of the complaint and vide order dated 10.04.2018, complaint was admitted and notice was ordered to be issued to the opposite parties.

4                                                        On receipt of the notice, the opposite party no.1 filed written statement through counsel and stated that there is no deficiency in service on their part as they have neither rendered any services to complainants nor have they obtained any financial benefit from them. Complainants have concocted a false story and concealed the material fact from this Forum that answering OP-1 has paid Rs.5 lakhs to complainant through cheque no.305475 under voucher dated 7.06.2014 and nothing is due to be paid by them. all the allegations levelled by complainant are denied being wrong and incorrect but it is admitted by them that deceased Lovepreet Singh was employed under them and he was working as Technician under contract with M/s Indus Towers Ltd and it is also admitted that death of Lovepreet Singh occurred due to fatal injuries sustained by him in road accident. OP-1 also admitted that said deceased Lovepreet Singh was got insured by them under Group Personal Accidental Policy from Op-2. It is reiterated that amount of Rs.5 lakhs has already been paid to complainant and now,

cc no.- 60 of 2018

now, complainants are not entitled for relief sought by them. There is no deficiency in service on the part of answering OP and prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs.

5                                        OP-2 filed written statement wherein they have denied all the allegations of complainant being wrong and incorrect and asserted that complicated questions of law and facts are involved in present case, which is not possible in summary proceedings of Consumer Forum. Claim filed by complainant relates to 2014 and thus, complaint filed by complainant is hopelessly time barred. Complainant has concealed the material facts from this Forum therefore, complaint is not maintainable in present form. It is denied that complainant did not lodge any claim, rather complainant lodged the insurance claim through OP-1. It is asserted that complainants are not the consumers of answering OP and they have no locus standi to file the present complaint. Ld counsel for OP-2 asserted before the Forum that complainants did not give any intimation regarding death of their son Lovepreet Singh to them. it is further averred that answering OP has already processed the claim of Rs.5 lakhs to OP-1 on 19.05.2014 and there is no deficiency in service on their part. It is reiterated that claim of complainants has already been settled and now nothing is due to be payable by OPs to complainants. It is asserted that there is no deficiency in service on the part of OP-2 and they have denied all the other allegations of complainants alongwith allegation of relief sought being wrong and incorrect and have prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs.

 

 

cc no.- 60 of 2018

6                                                            Parties were given proper opportunities to prove their respective case. The complainant tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex.C-1, and documents Ex C-2 to C-6 and then, closed his evidence.

7                                                             In order to rebut the evidence of the complainant, the Ld Counsel for OP-1 tendered in evidence affidavit of Baljit Singh Ex OP-1/A and documents Ex OP-1/B to OP-1/C and then, closed the same on behalf of OPs. Ld counsel for OP-2 tendered in evidence affidavit of Shivali Sharma Ex OP-2/1 and documents Ex OP-2/2 to Ex OP-2/4 and also closed the same on behalf of OP-2

8                                                        We have heard the learned counsel for the complainant as well as Opposite parties and have very carefully gone through the affidavits and documents on the file.

9                                                                  From the careful perusal of record placed on file and after going through the pleadings and arguments advanced by parties, it is observed that grievance of complainants is their son was working as Mechanic under OP-1 at monthly salary of Rs.9000/- and he was insured with OP-2. Said Lovepreet Singh son of complainants died in a road accident on 1.02.2014 in Mohali and FIR to this effect bearing no.38 under section 279/337/427/304-A IPC was got recorded on 27.03.2014. Intimation regarding his death was also given to OP-1. They came to know about insurance of their son, when OP-1 gave particulars of Group Personal Accidental Policy to complainant no.2 which disclosed that their son Lovepreet Singh was insured with Op-2 for the period from

cc no.- 60 of 2018

20.05.2013 to 9.05.2014. His death occurred during the subsistence of insurance policy but OPs never supplied any policy document to complainants or to their insured son. Complainants requested OPs to make payment of insurance claim on account of death of their son, but they did not do anything needful, which amounts to deficiency in service and has caused mental agony to them. In reply, counsel for OP-1 took plea that complainants have concealed the material fact from this Forum that OP-1 has paid Rs.5 lakhs to complainants through cheque no.305475 under voucher dated 7.06.2014 and nothing is due to be paid by them. All the other allegations levelled by complainant are denied being wrong and incorrect but it is admitted by them that deceased Lovepreet Singh was employed under them and he was working as Technician under contract with M/s Indus Towers Ltd and it is also admitted that he died due to road accident. OP-1 agreed that deceased Lovepreet Singh was got insured by them under Group Personal Accidental Policy from OP-2. As per OP-1 there is no deficiency in service on their part and prayed for dismissal of complaint. OP-2 also took the same plea that they have already processed the claim of Rs.5 lakhs to OP-1 on 19.05.2014 and there is no deficiency in service on their part. Claim of complainants has already been settled and now nothing is due to be paid by them. All the other allegations are denied being incorrect and asserted that complainants are not their consumers and they did not lodge their claim with them and even no intimation regarding death of said Lovepreest Singh was given by complainants to them.

10                                 In order to prove his pleadings, ld counsel for complainant brought our attention towards document ExC-2 that is copy of Risk Head Cover

cc no.- 60 of 2018

Letter dated 21.05.2013 written by OP-2 to OP-1. This documents contains information that Lovepreet Singh deceased son of complainants was insured with OP-2 for the period from 20.05.2013 to 19.05.2014 for sum of assured of Rs.5,00,000/-. C-2 shows that name of deceased Lovepreet Singh finds mention at serial no.12, it also depict the date of joining of deceased with OP-1 and accidental death claim amount as sought by complainants. Ex C-4 copy of FIR No.38 dated 27.03.2014 further proves the pleadings of complainant that death of Lovepreet Singh occurred due to road accident by collision of truck with car in which said Lovepreet Singh could not sustain fatal injuries and died.  Ex C-5 is copy of Post Mortem Report dated 2.02.2014 that further proves the pleadings of complainants that Lovepreet Singh died due to fatal accidental injuries sustained by him in said accident. Ex C-6 is copy of letter of appointment issued by OP-1 to deceased Lovepreet Singh wherein it is clearly mentioned that deceased was insured with Ops under Group Insurance and mediclaim facility from their Company.

11                                 It is observed that there it is admitted case of the parties that deceased Lovepreet Singh was employed with OP-2 and it is also admitted that he was got insured by OP-1 from OP-2. There is no dispute that death of Lovepreet Singh occurred due to fatal accidental injuries sustained by him. It is also not denied that OP-2 paid the amount of Rs.5 lakhs claimed on account of death of Lovepreet Singh to OP-1 on 19.05.2014. Firstly in their written reply to the complaint, OP-1 took stand that they paid the amount of Rs.5 lakhs as claimed amount to complainants vide cheque no.305475 dated 7.06.2014 and nothing is due towards the death claim of Lovepreet Singh. Complainant filed an application

cc no.- 60 of 2018

before this Forum for directing OP-1 to produce attested copy of folio of cheque no. 305475 dated 7.06.2014 vide which they made payment of Rs.5 lakhs to them and also copy of statement of account of OP-1 regarding transaction of cheque no.305475 dated 7.06.2014. The Op-1 filed reply to this application and in their written reply they took new plea that they gave option to complainants to keep the cheque of Rs.5 lakhs or to get their second son employed in the Company of OP-1 and complainants chose to second option and waived off the claim of compensation and second son Jagmeet Singh Dhillon was given job in the Company of OP-1. OP-1 did not place on record any evidence or document regarding alleged settlement arrived at between  complainants and OP-1 vide which they relinquished their right for the claim amount of Rs.5 lakhs on account of death of their son Lovepreet Singh. Even OP-1 did not produce any document to prove that second son of complainants namely Jagmeet Singh Dhillon ever worked with them. As such,  they failed to prove their version that they made payment of claim amount to complainants as received by them from OP-2 on account of death of Lovepreet Singh son of complainants. They wrongly and illegally retained this amount with them for which they were only custodian on behalf of complainants and they had to pay this amount to complainants as they received the same from OP-2 on behalf of complainants on account of death claim of their son Lovepreet Singh. This amounts to criminal breach of trust against OP-1. These acts of OP-1 amount to deficiency in service and trade mal practice on their part.

12                                                      From the above discussion and keeping in view the evidence placed on record by parties, this Forum is of considered opinion that there

cc no.- 60 of 2018

is deficiency in service on the part of OP-1 for not paying the claim amount of complainants on account of death of their son Lovepreet Singh who was working with them and was insured with OP-2 under Group Insurance Policy purchased by OP-1. Complainants have succeeded in proving their case and therefore, complaint in hand is hereby allowed. OP-1 is directed to make payment of Rs.5,00,000/-to complainants alongwith interest at the rate of 9% per anum from 19.05.2014 i.e from the day when OP-1 received this amount from OP-2 till final realization.    OP-1 is further directed to pay Rs.10,000/-to complainants as compensation for harassment and mental agony suffered by them and Rs.5000/- as litigation expenses. Compliance of this order be made within 30 days of receipt of copy of this order, failing which complainant shall be entitled to proceed under section 25 and 27 of the Consumer Protection Act. Copy of order be given to parties free of cost. File be consigned to record room.

Announced in Open Forum

Dated : 15.05.2019                 

 

(Param Pal Kaur)                     (Ajit Aggarwal)

 Member                                     President