Date of filing:-12/04/2016.
Date of Order:-02/08/2017.
DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL FORUM(COURT)
B A R G A R H.
Consumer Complaint No. 14 of 2016.
Sri Mangulu Sahu, aged about 76(seventy six), S/o Late Trilokya Sahu, Occupation-Cultivation, R/o. Patrapali, P.o. Barihapali, P.s. Padampur, Dist-Bargarh.
..... ..... ..... Complainant.
-: V e r s u s :-
Jamala S.C.S. Ltd, represented through it’s Secretary, JamalaS.C.S. Ltd., At/Po-Jamala P.s. Padampur Dist-Bargarh.
Sambalpur Dist-Co-operative Central Bank Ltd., represented through it’s Secretary, Lengu Mishra Chowk, Bargarh,Po/Dist;Bargarh-768028.
..... ..... ....Opposite Parties.
Counsel for the Parties.
For the Complainant:- Sri P.K. Mahapatra, Advocate with other Advocates.
For the Opposite Party No.1(one):- Sri S.S.Shukla, Advocate with other Advocates.
For the Opposite Party No.2(two):- Sri R.K.Satpahty, Advocate with other Advocates.
-: P R E S E N T :-
Sri Krishna Prasad Mishra ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... P r e s i d e n t.
Sri Pradeep Kumar Dash ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... M e m b e r.
Ajanta Subhadarsinee ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... M e m b e r(w).
Dt.02/08/2017 -: J U D G E M E N T :-
Presented by Sri K.P. Mishra, President:-
Brief fact of the case :-
In accordance with the Sec-12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986, the Complainant preferred to file this case pertaining to the deficiencies of service on the part of the Opposite Parties as enumerated hereunder.
The case of the Complainant is that his son namely Tejaraj Sahu was a registered member of the Opposite Party No-1(one) vide No.5919 and I.D.No.182503825, which he was continuing till his death.
As being a member of the same the deceased Tejaraj Sahu had insured his life by paying the required amount of premium mount for a sum assured amount of Rs.100,000/-(Rupees one lakh)only in case of his death, observing all required formalities of the co-operative rules of the society wherein the Opposite Party No.1(one) was the Secretary, that during the subsistence of the same policy he died suddenly in the Burla Medical College Hospital on Dt.07.10.2012.
Consequent upon the death of his son the Complainant, being his legal heir claimed before the Opposite Party No.1(one) for the sum assured amount by submitting all required documents but to his utter surprise he has not yet been paid with the same nor has been informed of any thing relating to that even after several reminder, seeing no alternative the Complainant served a pleader notice through his Advocate to the Opposite Parties on Dt.06.11.2015 by Registered Post with acknowledgment. In response to that the Opposite Party No.1(one) gave him a reply admitting the facts of the case but also showed his helplessness as he has sent his claim application to the higher authority i.e. Opposite Party No.2(two). But there is no response from their end. For which the Complainant has preferred to file this case with an allegation of gross negligence of the Opposite Parties in rendering service to him and with an allegation of un-fair trade practice on their part as such has claimed for the compensation of an amount of Rs.1,00,000/-(Rupees one lakh)only for his financial loss and mental agony which he has undergone due to the Opposite Parties, besides the sum assured amount and an amount of Rs.20,000/-(Rupees twenty thousand)only as litigation expenses. And in it’s support he has filed some required documents (i) Membership Pass Book (ii) Death certificate of the deceased son (iii) the letter of reminder Dt.11.08.2015 (iv)copy of the Notice Dt. 06.11.2015 with postal receipt & A.D, (v) the reply letter of the Opposite Party No.1(one), claiming both to be jointly and severally liable for the same.
Perused the Complaint, the documents and after hearing the counsel of the Complainant we found it to be a genuine one, admitted the same and sent notice for the appearance and to file their version if any, so on being noticed the Opposite Parties appeared and filed their version through their Advocate separately in different dates. Wherein it has been admitted by the Opposite Parties regarding the membership of the deceased Tejaraja Sahu and has admitted his death but the Opposite Party No.1(one) has strictly denied the insurance policy and the payment of the premium for the same as false one and has shifted his responsibility towards Opposite Party No.2(two) by contending that he has performed his part of duty by forwarding the claim application to the Opposite Party No.2(two) for consideration vide his letter No.25(D) on Dt.10.09.2013 and has also denied all other allegation of the complaint as of not his duty or responsibility is not deficient in rendering his part of service hence claimed not to have any joint liability regarding the claim of the insured amount nor for any compensation regarding the financial and mental harassment caused to him. And in addition to that has also denied to have any cause of action in view of the question of limitation in filing the complaint. But at the same time has admitted the responsibility of the Opposite Party No.2(two) to have the power and responsibility in deciding about the alleged claim.
In furtherance, to the version of the Opposite Party No.2(two), he has totally denied the case of the Complainant with a contention made therein that the deceased is not known to him and has also denied the membership of the deceased and the payment of premium paid by him, also at the same time has denied to have received the insurance claim in time hence has not remitted the same to the insurance company for which the insurance company has not settled the claim as he has received the same on Dt.14.11.2012 from the branch office level i.e the Opposite Party No.1(one). And has also denied to have the controlling authority over the Opposite Party No.1(one) and simply acts as a media like post office to transfer the claim to the insurance company beside that he has got no role to play hence denied to have shown any deficient action in serving the Complainant and is not liable for any action and besides that has raised a point of non joinder of necessary party by not adding the insurance company hence is liable to be dismissed against him. In addition to the version the learned Advocate for the Opposite Parties has filed a written notes of argument In support their case.
Having gone through the complaint, documents filed by the Complainant and the written version filed by the Opposite Parties it came to our notice that there are some vital question of facts and law which are to be decided for proper adjudication of the case,
First, whether the complaint is maintainable ?
Second, whether there is any deficiencies on the part of the Oppsite parties in rendering service to the complainant ?
Third, whether the complainant is entitled to the insurance assured amount and the compensation amount ?
So while considering the point as to whether the complaint is maintainable, we took all the materials available in the record very carefully from where it is very much clear that the deceased has paid the required amount of the premium amount for his insurance worth of Rs.1,00,000/-( Rupees one lakh) only after observing all the required formalities as per the prevailing rules of the society and to that effect the Opposite Party No.1(one) has admitted in it’s version as such he has admitted to have sent the claim papers to it’s higher authority i.e Opposite Party No.2(two) to which he has also, later on admitted in it’s version as the claim paper was sent lately as such the same has not been sent to the insurance company for indemnification of the same, from where it is crystal clear that the deceased had insured his life which has been substantiated from the receipt and statement of account furnished by the Complainant and also from the version of the Opposite Parties, hence the deceased is proved to be a consumer of the society and after his demise his legal heir, the Complainant is entitle for the claim as made by him since it relates to an insurance policy entered in to by his deceased son through the Opposite Parties, hence in our view the case in hand is maintainable as such our views go against the Opposite Parties and answered accordingly in favor of the Complainant.
Secondly whether there is any deficiencies in rendering service to the Complainant is there, on the part of the Opposite Parties, while examining the point it clearly reveals from the materials available in the record that the Opposite Party No.1(one) has admitted to have sent the claim paper to the Opposite Party No.2(two) to settle the same in his version, and it is also seen in the version of the Opposite Party No.2(two) in the first part it, has denied to have any knowledge about the deceased and the claim but on the later part of it’s same version again he has admitted that since the policy paper was received from it’s branch lately for which it could not be sent to the Insurance Company for settlement of the claim which are all self contradictory from which it can safely inferred that the Opposite Parties are playing hide & seek game with Complainant which amounts to deficiencies of service and unfair trade practice too. In furtherance to our observation it came to our notice that the Opposite Party No.2(two) has claimed for dismissal of the case in view of the limitation of time but in this regard it is seen from the record that after the death of the deceased son of the Complainant on Dt. 07.10.2012 there after claim has been made before the Opposite Party no-1 and same was sent to the Opposite Party No.2(two) but there was no response from their side to which reminder have been made and it was neither denied nor any information was given to him regarding the same, and subsequently there after the pleader notice to that effect has been sent to the Opposite Party No.1(one) to which he has replied which amounts to persistence of the claim more over the claim which was made by the Complainant was still pending with the office of the Opposite Party No.2(two) which has been admitted by it’s version mentioning therein that since the claim was received from it’s branch level office in late it could not be sent to the insurance company for It’s indemnification which it self is self explanatory to the filing of the same is not beyond the time limit, rather from such conduct of the Opposite Parties as the contention made by the Opposite Party No.1(one) has admitted in it’s version that he has received the claim in time and has remitted to the Opposite Party No.2(two) immediately,so it was the duty of the Opposite Parties No.2(two) to send the same to the insurance company with which it was tied up under their scheme but neglected to do the same in time and also in the meantime during the course of the hearing process of the case the Opposite Party No.1(one) did not give any instruction to his advocate, consequently the learned advocate on Dtd. 22/02/2017 has filed a memo of instruction from his behalf from where it can be safely concluded that there has been deficiencies in rendering service on their part,hence our views are affirmative one and answered accordingly in favor of the Complainant.
Thirdly while examining the point as to whether the complainant is entitled to the insured sum assured amount and other claim made by him, we have already discussed in details about the case in our foregoing paragraph and are answered in affirmation in favor of the Complainant, now it is squarely proved the entitlement of the Complainant for the claim he sought for and as such our views is expressed affirmative to the issue in favour of the complainant for which both of the Opposite Parties are liable jointly and severally,Hence order follows.
O R D E R
Hence the Opposite Parties are directed jointly and severally to pay the sum assured amount of Rs.1,00,000/-(Rupees one lakh) only and Rs.10,000/-( Rupees ten thousand) only as compensation towards the physical and mental harassment undergone by the Complainant for such deficiencies in rendering service to him with interest @ of 9%(nine percent) per annum on the total amount from the date of filing of the case till the date of this Order within thirty days of receipt of the order failing which interest @ of 16%(sixteen percent) would accrue on the total amount till the actual realization of the same.
Accordingly the Complaint is allowed against the Opposite Parties and the case is disposed off.
Typed to my dictation
and corrected by me.
(Sri Krishna Prasad Mishra)
P r e s i d e n t.
I agree, I agree,
(Ajanta Subhadarsinee) (Sri Pradeep Kumar Dash)
M e m b e r. M e m b e r.
