STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION U.T., CHANDIGARH [ADDITIONAL BENCH]

Appeal No. : 238 of 2025 Date of Institution : 31.07.2025 Date of Decision : 26.02.2026 Gurpreet Kaur wife of Late Rajamrinder Singh, H.No.350, Village Beed Ghaggar, PO Chandimandir, District Panchkula, Haryana-134107 (Also on behalf of her minor son-Anantraj Singh aged 3 years)

Both Class-1 Legal Heirs of Late Rajamrinder Singh ….Appellants/Complainants Versus

1. Life Insurance Company of India, Divisional Office, Unit-2, Jeevan Prakash Building, Sector 17-B, Chandigarh-160017, through its Chairman, Director/Authorized Signatory

2. Shri Mangalam Ramasubramanian Kumar, Chairperson, Life Insurance Company of India, Divisional Office, Unit-2, Jeevan Prakash Building, Sector 17-B, Chandigarh-160017

3. Sh. Satnam Singh father of deceased Rajamrinder Singh, R/o Village & Post Office Amrala, Tehsil Khamano, District Fatehgarh Sahib

4. Smt. Kulwant Kaur W/o Sh. Satnam Singh R/o Village & Post Office Amrala, Tehsil Khamano, District Fatehgarh Sahib ….Respondents/Opposite Parties BEFORE: MRS. PADMA PANDEY, PRESIDING MEMBER SH. RAJESH K. ARYA, MEMBER ARGUED BY :-

Sh. Deepak Aggarwal, for the appellant(s)

Sh. Deepak Arora, Advocate for respondents No.1 & 2 Sh. Paramjit Batta, Advocate for respondents No.3 & 4 PER PADMA PANDEY, PRESIDING MEMBER The instant appeal has been filed by the complainants (appellants herein) for setting aside order dated 23.05.2025 vide which their consumer complaint bearing No.746 of 2022 has been dismissed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I, U.T., Chandigarh (hereinafter to be referred as ‘District Commission’).

2] In nutshell, the case of the appellant(s)/complainant(s) before the District Commission was that her husband since deceased Rajamrinder Singh had purchased three life insurance policies in his name from the respondents/opposite parties No.1 & 2 in order to secure himself as well as his family members and one renewal payment receipt dated 04.02.2022 was attached as Exhibit C-1. The appellant/complainant being wife and Master Anantraj Singh, being son of Late Rajamrinder Singh are the Class-1 legal heirs and as per the information derived from her husband, the assured amount was payable to his legal heirs in case of his death. However, he unfortunately died on 24.02.2022 (Exhibit C-2). When the appellant/ complainant approached the respondents/opposite parties No.1 & 2 in April 2022 for payment of ₹3,98,790/-, ₹7,28,024/- and ₹6,38,674/-, they lingered on the matter and later informed her that she was not the nominee. Upon seeking information under the Right to Information Act, 2005, she was informed vide letter dated 01.08.2022 (Exhibit C-3) that the death claim had already been paid to the nominees i.e. the father and mother of Late Rajamrinder Singh (OP No.3 & 4). It was, thus, revealed that the respondents/opposite parties No.1 & 2 illegally released the amount to the nominees, who were only trustees, ignoring the rights of the legal heirs despite being aware from the death certificate that the appellant/complainant-Gurpreet Kaur is the wife of the deceased, thereby violating the provisions of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956.

3] On the other hand, while contesting the consumer complaint, the respondents/opposite parties No.1 & 2 pleaded in their reply that though the appellants/complainants are wife and son of the deceased and Class I legal heirs as claimed, the payment was legally payable to the nominee in the policies, which had already been released and the Corporation had no concern with the claim of any other person as it was a matter between the alleged legal heirs and the nominees. It was further pleaded that the liability of the Corporation stood discharged once payment was made to the nominee named by the Life Assured and that, as per law, the nominee is trustee of the money qua the legal heirs; therefore, if the appellants/complainants had any claim over the policy amounts, it lay only against the no