DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM
SOUTH 24 – PARGANAS , AMANTRAN BAZAR, BARUIPUR,
KOLKATA-700 0144
C.C. CASE NO. __72_ _ OF ___2018
DATE OF FILING :_22.6..2018 DATE OF PASSING JUDGEMENT:07.01.2019
Present : President : Ananta Kumar Kapri
Member(s) : Subrata Sarker & Jhunu Prasad
COMPLAINANT : Smt. Sathi Das, wife of late Gopal Das of Vill. Sankizahan, P.O Gopal Gunge Hat, P.S Kultali, Dist. South 24-Parganas.
O.P/O.Ps : The New India Assurance Company Limited , Diamond Harbour Branch, Diamond Harbour, 743331.
__________________________________________________________________
J U D G M E N T
Sri Ananta Kumar Kapri, President
Refusal to admit the claim of the complainant by the New India Assurance Company Limited ( O.P) has galvanized the complainant to file the instant case under section 12, C.P Act, 1986.
The facts leading to the filing of the instant case may be epitomized as follows.
One Gopal Das was the husband of the complainant. The said husband made an insurance policy namely Janata personal accident (Individual) Insurance Policy of the O.P on 6.7.2015 and the Policy Number was 51260547152400000039 valid till 5.7.2016. During continuation of the policy, Gopal Das met with an accident on 30.8.2015 and thereafter he expired on 2.9.2015. The complainant’s wife is the nominee of Gopal Das in the said policy. She lodged a claim before the O.P for untimely demise of her husband but the O.P has turned a deaf ear to her claim. Persuasions also yielded no result. Therefore, she has filed the instant case ,praying for passing an order for payment of accidental death benefit of Rs.1 lac , compensation etc. Hence, the case.
The O.P has been contesting the case by filing written statement ,wherein it is contended inter alia that the victim Gopal Das died of an accident arisen from the use of a Motor cycle as is revealed from the suo moto FIR lodged by the police. The complainant was asked to submit the driving licence and registration certificate of the deceased. She did not comply with the order of the O.P and, therefore, the claim submitted by the complainant is treated as “no claim”. There is no deficiency in service on their part and the case should, therefore, be dismissed in limini with cost.
Upon the averments of the parties, the following points are formulated for consideration.
POINT FOR DETERMINATION
- Is there any deficiency in service as alleged by the complainant on the part of the O.P ?
- Is the complainant entitled to get relief or reliefs as prayed for ?
EVIDENCE OF THE PARTIES
Evidence on affidavit is filed on behalf both the parties and the same are also kept in the record after consideration.
DECISION WITH REASONS
Point no.1 & 2 :
It goes undisputed that Gopal Das i.e the deceased husband of the complainant was a policy holder of the O.P and also that the policy was valid on the date of death of Gopal Das. It is submitted on behalf of the O.P that the complainant did not file the driving license and registration certificate of her deceased husband and, therefore, her claim was rejefted by the O.P.
Now to see whether this rejection of the claim of the complainant is just and proper. If it is not just and proper, it will certainly be a deficiency in service on the part of the O.P.
It is stated by the O.P that the complainant did not produce driving license and registration certificate of her husband and that such information is available from the suo moto FIR lodged by the police. The police lodged a suo moto FIR stating therein that the motor cycle bearing registration no. WB 20K6138 was recovered from the site where the dead body of Gopal Das was lying. On perusal of the record it is also found that the investigation which was conducted by the police ultimately culminated in submission of final report, as the police failed to find out any clue as to the motor cycle which was recovered from the place of occurrence. Mere reference of a number of Motor Cycle by the police in the suo moto FIR does no way establish that the said Motor cycle belonged to none but Gopal Das i.e the husband of the complainant. The information about the motor cycle as supplied in the suo motor FIR of the police is nothing but a hearsay evidence and such kind of evidence is not acceptable in law.
In the circumstances, it is now found that the O.P has not acted properly in rejecting the claim of the complainant for the reason that the complainant did not file the driving license and registration certificate of the Motor Cycle allegedly belonged to her deceased husband. There is no evidence on record that her deceased husband had the said motor cycle and that he was driving the said motor cycle on the date of occurrence.
Regards being had to all these we feel no hesitation whatsoever to say that the rejection of the claim of the complainant on the ground of her failure to produce the registration certificate and driving license of her husband is unjust and improper. This being so, such an act on the part of the O.Ps is nothing but a gross deficiency in service. Complainant is entitled to get relief or reliefs and the same is granted accordingly as hereunder.
In the result, the case succeeds .
Hence,
ORDERED
That the complaint case be and the same is decreed on contest against the O.P with a cost of Rs.10,000/-.
The O.P is directed to pay a sum of Rs.1 lac as accidental benefit of her husband within a month of this order ,failing which, the O.P will have to pay a sum of Rs.30,000/- as compensation along with the accidental benefit amount, cost amount as referred to above which will carry interest @8% p.a till full realization thereof.
Let a free copy of this order be given to the parties concerned at once.
President
I / We agree
Member
Dictated and corrected by me
President
