West Bengal

Bankura

CC/51/2023

Smt. Putul Mandal - Complainant(s)

Versus

Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Ardhendu Sekhar Ghosh

18 Jan 2024

ORDER

IN    THE   DISTRICT   CONSUMER   DISPUTES   REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BANKURA

  Consumer Complaint No. 51/2023

                            Date of Filing:06/06/2023                    

Before:                                        

1. Samiran Dutta                            Ld. President.      

2. Siddhartha Sankar Bhui            Ld. Member. 

 

For the Complainant:  Ld. Advocate Ardhendu Sekhar Ghosh

For the O.P.                :  Ld. Advocate Chandi Charan Adhvaryyu

Complainant  

1.Smt. Putul Mandal, W/O Late Himanshu Mandal 2. Priti Mondal, D/o Late Himanshu Mandal (Minor, represented by her mother Putul Mandal) 3.Smt. Sarasati Mondal, W/O Dhirendra Nath Mandal (mother of the deceased) 4.Dhirendra Nath Mandal, S/O Late Ratan Mandal (Father of the deceased)  All of Village- Gopinanthpur, P.O.Brindabanpur, P.S.Beliatore, District- Bankura, PIN- 722 203, Mob: 8967209893                                                                                 

Opposite Party                                                                                                                                                  

Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd., 3^rd Floor, Block-3B, Eco Space, Plot No.11/F/11, New Town, Rajarhat, Kolkata- 700 160

                                                                                                                                                               

FINAL ORDER / JUDGEMENT

Order No.09

Dated:18-01-2024

Both parties file hazira through Advocate.

The case is fixed for argument and delivery of judgement and W.V. if any in the mean time.

W.V. is filed with written argument by the O.P.

After hearing argument from both sides the Commission proceeds to dispose of the case as hereunder: -

The Complainants’ case is that one Himanshu Mandal, predecessor in interest of the Complainants’ was the registered owner of Motor cycle No. being WB40W-0285, duly insured with O.P./Insurance Co., Policy No. being  OG-19-2432-1806-00001279, valid from 10/01/2019 to 09/01/2020 with P.A. cover for Owner-Driver for Rs.15 Lakh. On 06/04/2019 said Himangshu Mondal since deceased was returning from Beliatore towards home at about 9 a.m. by riding his own Motor cycle and at that time Motor cycle bearing No.WB 68Y-2592 was coming from the opposite side and dashed the Motor cycle of deceased Himanshu Mandal near Chhandar Betel Store under Beliatore P.S. as a result of which said Himanshu Mandal was severely injured and shifted to first Beliatore P.H.C. then BSMCH and lastly at SSKM Hospital, Kolkata where he died on 17/04/2019. The incident was reported to Beliatore P.S. vide Beliatore P.S.Case No.34/2019, dated: 01/05/2019 u/s279-304A IPC and intimation was duly given to the O.P./Insurance Co. followed by claim application. But in spite of submission of Succession certificate as asked for the claim was not settled but repudiated. The complainants being the legal heirs of the Insured Himangshu Mondal has approached this Commission for appropriate relief.

                                                                                                                                                                                         Contd……p/2

Page: 2

O.P./Insurance Co. belatedly submitted Written Version to contest the case contending inter alia that the case is barred by limitation and that the Complainant is not entitled to get any relief in this case for delayed intimation to the Insurance Co. and also for non-proof of valid Driving License.

                                                                                     -: Decision with reasons: -

Having regard to the facts of the case, submission, contention and documents from both sides the Commission finds that there is no dispute with regard to the factum of accident in which the victim lost his life. Insurance Policy was valid at the time of accident with P.A. cover for Owner-Driver for Rs.15 Lakh and the Driving License of said Himanshu Mandal is found to be valid as on the date of the accident. Identity proof of the Complainants are on record. Such insignificant delay in lodging F.I.R. and intimation to the O.P./Insurance Co. should not be seriously viewed for the purpose of settlement of claim if it is otherwise maintainable.

The Commission finds no reason as to why O.P./Insurance Co. sought for Succession Certificate for settlement of Insurance claim. The Complainant(s) complied with the same by production of the Succession Certificate by spending legal expenses. Such Insurance claim is not a debt or security or any investment and as such no Succession Certificate is required u/s 370 of Indian Succession Act, 1925. The Insurance claim in this case is an unliquidated damage and the O.P./Insurance Co. is bound to disburse the same to the claimant(s) after assessment of the damage. No relationship as Debtor and Creditor exists between the claimant(s) and the O.P./Insurance Co. in such case. The Commission thinks that it is whimsical and arbitrary act of the O.P./Insurance Co.  to harass the claimant(s) and delay the settlement of claim by seeking production of Succession Certificate which the claimant(s) has to obtain at huge legal expenses and the O.P./Insurance Co. has to compensate the Complainant(s) together with Litigation cost for the same.

Ld. Advocate for the O.P.  has however contended that the Complainants have filed the instant case after long expiry of two years from the date of cause of action which arose on 10/09/2020 when the repudiation letter was sent to the Complainants. But such delay has occasioned as the Complainants could collect the Succession Certificate on 31/01/2023 as per direction of the O.P./Insurance Co. by letter dated:  03/03/2020 though the Succession case was filed on 03/09/2020 and order was passed on 19/01/2023. This apart the Apex Court in suo motu writ written (Civil) 3/2020 has  extended the period of limitation during COVID-19 period. So the limitation point does not hold good.       

                                                                                                                                                                                  Contd……p/3

Page: 3

Ld. Advocate for the O.P. next contended that Driving License of the deceased insured was not seized by the concerned Police Authority and no Final Police Report is forthcoming on the record. Mere production of Driving License of the deceased insured will not establish that the deceased insured was driving the Motor Cycle at the time of accident. But the Commission finds from the FIR that the deceased insured was driving himself his Motor Cycle and it is the duty of the O.P./Insurance Co. to disprove the same by producing any adverse Final Police Report. The Commission cannot wait for disposal of this Insurance claim pending any Police investigation and in such case FIR is a sufficient proof to establish the identity of the driver at the time of the accident.

Ld. Advocate for the O.P. / Insurance Co. has further contended that the O.P./Insurance Co. has no mala fide intention on their part for disposal of the settlement claim but the O.P./Insurance Co. was compelled to seek Succession Certificate as the Complainants initially submitted  a Notarial affidavit giving Putul Mandal and  Priti Mandal as the only two legal heirs of the deceased insured Himanshu Mandal and upon further verification O.P./Insurance Co. could detect two more legal heirs i.e. parents of the deceased insured whose names  were not disclosed by the Complainants in the said affidavit. In order to get the correct picture of legal heirs of the deceased insured O.P./Insurance Co.took the recourse for production of Succession Certificate  communicated to the Complainants by letter  dated: 03/03/2020. But the Commission is not ready to accept this plea to justify the production of Succession Certificate. As stated above the O.P./Insurance Co. cannot in any settlementof 1^st Party/3^rd Party  insurance claim like the present case seek for production of Succession Certificate from the Complainants in case of any dispute of legal  heirship of the Complainants.

Thus the Commission comes to the irresistible conclusion that the Complainants are entitled to get the relief as prayed for.

Hence it is ordered……..

That the case be and the same is allowed ex-parte but without cost.

The O.P./Insurance Co. is directed to pay to the Complainant(s) Rs.15 Lakh in equal proportion (s) or to nominated person(s) themselves together with compensation of Rs.50,000/- and Litigation Cost of Rs.5,000/- within one month from this date in default law will take its own course.

Both parties be supplied copy of this Judgement free of cost with the direction upon the O.P./Insurance Co. to take care of mis-interpretation of requirement of Succession Certificate for settlement of such insurance claim.

 

 ____________________                _________________         

HON’BLE   PRESIDENT           HON’BLE MEMBER