The proceeding has been contested on behalf of officials of LICI - OPs 1 & 2 and on behalf of the OP 3 by presenting separate written versions on 9.3.11 and on 13.4.11 respectively.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

            Averments made in the complaint have been verified by the Complainant No.3. Complainants did not examine any witness but brought on record a copy of the judgment and decree passed in OC Case No.37/05 of the Court of the Ld. Civil Judge (Jr. Div.) Gangarampur, as Ext.1 and that of an heir-ship certificate issued from the local Gram Panchayat as Ext.2. Averments made in the written version of the OP 3 or of OPs 1 & 2 have also been supported by verification. No other evidence was adduced in the case though an opportunity was given from the end of the Forum.

 

            Let us now enter into the determination on the four points formulated above.

 

            OP-3 in her written version claimed that the complainants are not consumers within the meaning of the CP Act. OPs 1 & 2 in their written version virtually appear to have stated that the instant proceeding has been brought by the complainants instead of seeking reliefs before appropriate Forum.

 

            Here the complainants brought the complaint seeking benefits payable under two LICI policies alleging that the Complainant No.1 has been the nominee respecting the policies and that complainants are heirs left by the policy-holder since deceased and further that despite their having had made approaches to the Balurghat Branch of LICI, the benefits have not been paid. As the complainants claim to have been heirs of the deceased policy-holder, they can very well be treated to be consumers under the Ins. Co. of which OPs 1 & 2 are two officials.

 

            It appears from Ext.1 – copy of the Jt. & Dr. in OC Case No.37/05 that in such decree the petitioner of that suit i.e. the OP 3 of this proceeding, was declared to be entitled to ¼ share of the benefits under the concerned two LICI policies and the LICI authority was directed to make payment accordingly.

 

 

 

 

            Such Jt. & Dr. passed in the OC Case, in our view, cannot render this complaint u/s 12 CP Act untenable as the present complainant are not the decree holders of that other proceeding.

 

            In the complaint the complainants have also alleged that the benefits payable under the policies have not been paid to them despite their having had made approaches to the Balurghat Branch of LICI. It may thus be regarded that in the instant complaint deficiency in service has been alleged.

            No other point was urged assailing maintainability. From a consideration of the circumstances, we find nothing which may render the complaint untenable. We thus decide this Point No.1 holding that the complaint brought by the complainants is maintainable.

 

            As the OP 3 has not been claimed to have been a service provider we are to see whether there was deficiency in service on the part of OPs 1 & 2 – the officials of LICI.

 

            In regard to the deficiency in service it has been averred by the complainants that the policy-holder died on 19.10.04 and that the decree in the Civil Suit brought by the OP 3, was passed as the back as on 17.9.07 and that thereafter the complainants communicated to the Balurghat Branch of the Ins. Co. for obtaining payment but such payment has not been made. Though the complainant has not adduced any evidence in the case to establish the said claim, we find that the OPs 1 & 2 in their written version do not appear to have specifically controverted such claim.

 

            It has been claimed by OPs 1 & 2 in their written version that they were ready to comply with the order of the Civil Court but owing to some communication gap the copy of the judgment was not placed before the Jalpaiguri Divisional Office and that for this Civil Court’s order could not be carried out in due time. It has not been shown that the communication gap ensued under circumstances beyond the control of OPs 1 & 2 despite there

 

 

 having remained sincere in complying with the order. Such being the situation, we think, it has to be regarded that there was deficiency in service on the part of OPs 1 & 2 in effecting disbursement of the benefits under the policies.

 

            It has been claimed in the POC that the complainants are only legal heirs of the deceased policy-holder, the OP 3 Rosonara Khatun Bibi having contracted marriage with another Muslim male and that for this the complainants are entitled to entire of the benefits under the two policies. Here there is no evidence in regard to OP 3’s contracting marriage with another person. In fact, in the heir-ship certificate brought on record by the complainants as Ext.2, it has been certified by the Pradhan of local Gram Panchayet that the OP 3 has been an heir left by the deceased policy-holder Matiur along with the complainants, that apart it has been stated in Sec. 41 of the Mulla’s Mahomedan Law (19^th Edition) that the estate of a deceased Mahomedan devolves upon his heirs at the moment of his death. From a consideration of the circumstances and the materials on record, we thus hold that the complainants are not entitled to the entire of the benefits payable under the two policies and that the complainants and the OP 3 are entitled to such benefits.

            In the complaint the complainants have prayed for an order directing payment of entire of the benefits payable under the two LICI policies to the complainants and interest thereon w.e.f. 17.9.2007 – i.e. the date of order of the Civil Court.

 

            We have in course of our determination on Point No.3 observed that the complainants are not entitled to the entire of the said benefits and that the complainants and OP 3 are to get such benefits virtually in view of their having been the heirs left by the deceased policy-holder Matiur.

 

            In course of hearing it was urged by the Ld. Counsel appearing for the OPs 1 & 2 that in absence of succession certificates this Forum would not be in a position to determine to what extent of a particular heir is entitled.

 

Ld. Counsel appearing for the complainants, on the other hand, urged that the complainants are ready to furnish indemnity bond before the LICI and that this Forum can very well determine the share to which a particular heir is entitled.

 

            We are unable to accept the contention that production of succession certificate is necessary for effecting disbursement of the benefits.

 

            It has been held in the decree dt. 17.9.07 passed in the OC Case No.37/05 that Rosonara Khatun Bibi – OP 3 is entitled to ¼ share of the benefits payable under the two policies, she having been the widow of the deceased.

 

            It goes undisputed that beside the OP 3 the other heirs left by the deceased are mother i.e. Complainant No.1, three brothers i.e. Complainant Nos. 2 to 4 and two sisters i.e. Complainant Nos. 5 & 6. In the absence of any claim to the contrary, we presume that the three brothers are full brothers and the two sisters are full sisters. Of the said heirs widow & mother would inherit as sharers.

 

            As per the Mulla’s Mahomedan Law, in the event of demise of a Sunni Mahomedan of Hanafi sect. (to which class it has to be presumed, the deceased policy-holder belonged) living only such relations as heirs namely widow, mother, three brothers and two sisters, mother is entitled to 1/6 share as normal share in view of absence of father of the deceased as a sharer.

 

            In the absence of leaving of a child by the deceased, wife as a sharer would get ¼ as has been held in OC Case No. 37/05.

 

            In view of deceased’s leaving behind him full brothers, sisters were precluded from inheriting as sharers. Such sisters along with brothers were to inherit as residuaries.

 

            Aggregate share of the heirs belonging to the class of sharers comes to wife’s ¼ + mother’s ¹/₆ = ¼ + ¹/₆ = ⁵/₁₂. Residue left would be 1– ⁵/₁₂ = ⁷/₁₂. 

 

 

            As per the Table of Residuaries found in Mulla’s Mahomedan Law    Full Sister - takes as a residuary with full brother, the brother taking a double portion.

 

            In course of hearing it was urged by the Ld. Counsel for the complainants that of the ⁷/₁₂ residue remaining left, ²/₃ would be payable to the brothers collectively and the 1/3 would be payable to the sisters collectively.

 

            We find nothing in the Table of Residuaries to view that the brothers collectively would get ²/₃ and the sisters collectively ¹/₃ of the residuary though there appear indications in the Table of Sharers when members of a particular relation would inherit collectively as has been indicated in the table of shares in cases of sharers like wife, daughters, full sisters etc.

 

 

 

 

 

 

            In this case the complainants’ averments made in the complaint is that the Complainant No.1 – mother, figured as the nominee respecting the policies. OP 3 claimed in her written version that she figured as the nominee. Concerned policy certificates or copies thereof do not appear to have been brought on record in this case. In view of laying of claim laid in the complaint that OP 3 is not entitled to any share of the benefits, the litigation over the benefit that took place before the Civil Court of Gangarampur, we deem it wise to direct the OPs 1 & 2 to make payment of the benefits to the complainants and the OP 3 in accordance with the shares indicated above.

 

            Complainants have prayed for interest w.e.f. 17.9.07 i.e. since the date of disposal of OC Case No. 37/05. It has been averred by the OPs that they were, otherwise to ready to make payment but could not make payment as owing to communication gap the copy of the judgement passed in the case had not been placed before the Divisional Office. Though the complainant in Para-7 of their complaint stated that after 17.9.07 they communicated to Balurghat Branch of Ins. Co. for obtaining payment, neither any document has been brought on record to show nor there is any averment to signify the date or dates on which they made such communications. However, having not effected disbursement of the benefits the Ins. Co. earned interest. From a consideration on the materials on record, we deem it wise to allow interest over the amount of benefits payable under the two policies @ 9% p.a. w.e.f. 1^st April, 2009 till actual payment.

 

            The Point No.4 is thus decided holding that the OPs 1 & 2 should be directed to make payment of the benefits payable under the policies in question by making payment of ¼ share of the benefits to OP 3-widow, 1/6 to Complainant No.1- mother, 7/48 to each of the Complainant Nos. 2,3 & 4- brothers, 7/96 to each of the Complainant Nos. 5 & 6 – sisters along with interest over the amount of respective shares @ 9% p.a. w.e.f. 1.4.09.

           

            In the result the complaint succeeds in part.

 

 

 

            It appears from the Postal A/D card and the case record that the service of notice of this proceeding upon the OPs was completed on 21.2.11. Instant proceeding is thus getting disposed of about five months after the completion of service of notice upon the OPs. Such delay appears to have been caused in view of a number of adjournments either on prayer of OP 3 or in view of complainants remaining absent or in the backdrop of calls of bandh etc.

            Under such circumstances, it is.

 

                                                O R D E R E D

 

            That the complaint u/s 12 CP Act brought by the complainants Smt. Jaheda Bewa and 5 Ors. on 16.10.2010 is allowed in part giving directions mentioned hereinafter.

 

            OPs 1 & 2 shall effect disbursement of the benefits namely the sum assured, bonus etc. payable under the two policies bearing No. (i) 451914663 & (ii) 45170604 both the standing in the name of Matiur Rahman since deceased, by making payment of 1/6 of such benefits to the Complainant No.1- Smt. Jaheda Bewa, ¼ to OP 3 Rosonara Khatun Bibi, 7/48 to each of Complainant Nos. 2,3 & 4 and 7/96 to each of Complainant Nos. 5 & 6.

 

            OPs 1 & 2 shall also pay to the complainants and OP 3 interest over the amounts payable by way of benefits of the policies @ 9% p.a. w.e.f. 01.04.2009.

 

            OPs 1 & 2 shall make the payment aforesaid within 45 days from the service of copy of this order upon them.

 

            If the procedural norms or formalities demand presence of the benefits at the office of LICI for effecting disbursement, OPs 1 & 2 shall make the payment aforesaid having served notices reasonably ahead asking the beneficiaries or such of them whose presence is necessary, to attend the office of the OP 2 within a reasonable span of time.

 

 

 

            Let plain copies of this order be furnished to the parties forthwith free of cost.

 

 

 

 

            Dictated & corrected

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

-x-