C.F. CASE No. : CC/08/52
COMPLAINANT : Rasmoni Roy
W/o Lt. Swapan Roy
Vill. College Para, P.O. Bethuadahari, P.S. Nakashipara, Dist. Nadia
– Vs –
OPPOSITE PARTIES/OPs : 1. Branch Manager
Golden Trust (Financial Service)
Dhapali More (near Poramatala)
2nd Floor, Old Nadia, Cinema Hall Nabadwip.
: 2. Branch Manager,
The New India Assurance Co. Ltd.
38 L.M. Ghosh Road (Bus Stand)
P.O. Krishnagar, P.S. Kotwali, Dist. Nadia.
: 3. Sr. Divisional Manager,
New India Assurance Co. Ltd
Howrah D.O. 512200
Madhusudan Apartment, 2nd Floor,
P 18, Dobson Lane, Howrah 711101
: 4 Manager,
Golden Trust Financial Service,
16, R.N. Mukherjee Road,
Kolkata 700 001
:5. Branch Manager
(Golden Trust Financial Service)
40, R.N. Tagore Road, Krishnagar
P.O. Krishnagar, P.S. Kotwali, Dist. Nadia
PRESENT : SHRI DILIP KUMAR BASU PRESIDENT
: KUMAR MUKHOPADHYAY MEMBER
: SMT SHIBANI BHATTACHARYA MEMBER
DATE OF DELIVERY
OF JUDGMENT : 31st July, 2009
: J U D G M E N T :
2
The fact of the complainant's case, in a nutshell, is as follows.
The complainant, Rasmoni Roy, W/O Late Swapan Roy has filed this case against the OPs viz., (1) Branch Manager, Golden Trust (Financial Service), Dhapali More, near Poramatala, Nabadwip, (2) Branch Manager, Krishnagar, New India Assurance Co. Ltd., 38 L.M. Ghosh Road, (3) Senior Divisional Manager, New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Howrah, (4) Manager, Golden Trust Financial Service, 16 R.N. Mukherjee Road, Kolkata 001 and (5) Branch Manager, Golden Trust Financial Service, 40, R.N. Tagore Road, Krishnagar alleging that her husband Swapan Roy obtained an insurance policy to the tune of Rs. 1,00,000/- for accidental death from New India Assurance Co. Ltd. through Golden Trust Financial Service having policy No. 4751220001799/E No. 4730861 whereon the complainant was the nominee. On 04.06.07 her husband, Swapan Roy died at Krishnagar District Hospital due to poisonous snake bite. She was not aware about obtaining the policy by her husband. In course of searching she detected the existence of policy. Though she along with her issues was spending days with miserable condition for want of sufficient means, after delayed detection of the policy she preferred the claim before The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. for releasing the sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- through Golden Trust Financial Service. According to the direction of the Insurance Company she sent the required documents for settlement of the claim. As the New India Assurance Co. Ltd. has not settled the claim within a considerable period and remained silent, by filing the instant case she has prayed for an order directing the OPs to pay the insurance amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- with interest, @ 12 % per annum, compensation of Rs. 30,000/- for mental agony and harassment, cost and other relief.
The OP No. 1, 4 & 5, Golden Trust Financial Services by filing a written version has contested this case admitting that Swapan Roy, the husband of the complainant who was their field worker obtained an accidental policy to the tune of Rs. 1,00,000/- through them from New India Assurance Co. Ltd. for the period from 23.06.2000 to 22.06.2015 pursuant to the MOU executed between the Golden Trust
3
Financial Services and New India Assurance Co. Ltd. on 30.12.1998. The complainant who was the nominee of that policy was the wife of deceased Swapan Roy. They have further asserted that the claim petition of the complainant dtd. 25.01.08 along with the relevant documents was sent to the New India Assurance Co. Ltd. They have also admitted that Swapan Roy, the insured died on 04.06.07 due to poisonous snake bite as confirmed by the District Hospital, Nadia. They have no liability for making payment of any amount pursuant to the said policy.
The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. by filing a written version has contested this case whereon they have denied all the material facts of the complaint as to obtaining policy by Swapan Roy, his death by snake bite, the nominee, etc. He has further stated in his written version that the claimant / JPA Policy Holder through G.T.F.S. has not filed the claim before the opposite party within the statutory period of limitation which has been specifically mentioned in the policy condition that the claim should be referred within one month and as per condition No. 1 & 2 enumerated thereon. As such the complainant is not entitled to get any relief.
In view of the above facts and circumstances the following points are taken for proper adjudication.
Point No.1: Whether there caused any deficiency in service on the part of the New India Assurance Co. Ltd.?
Point No.2: Whether the complainant is entitled to get benefit as prayed for?
FINDING WITH REASONS
Both the points are taken together for sake of convenience and for the purpose of avoiding needless repetitions.
Ld. Lawyer of the opposite party, New India Assurance Co. Ltd. has argued that the complainant has not preferred the claim within one month from the
4
death of the insured which is an essential condition of getting relief. She has not explained why she preferred the claim beyond the period of one month. He has further argued as per condition the complainant had to inform this opposite party within 14 days from the date of accident. But no such information was furnished. He has further argued that the complainant has not furnished the required documents as asked for; without having the same the Officer who settles the claim could not settle the matter of the complainant. If the complainant would submit all the required documents as asked for then the settlement obviously took place in time. Thus, there is no deficiency in service and the case is liable to be dismissed.
Though the OP, New India Assurance Co. Ltd. has denied the holding of a policy by Swapan Roy, the husband of the complainant, the Ld. Lawyer of this OP has also filed today a copy of the policy of Swapan Roy. Thus, the Insurance Company has admitted that Swapan Roy had a policy of Group JPA insurance policy to the tune of Rs. 1,00,000/-.
The contention of the Ld. Lawyer of the OP, The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. that the complainant has not preferred the claim within one month as per condition enumerated therein. But this condition is not mandatory. Besides, The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. in their letter REF No. 512200/JPA/SPG/2007/73 dtd. 23.08.07 has demanded some documents from Rasmoni Roy, W/O Late Swapan Roy. The letter (Annexure – H) of Rasmoni Roy addressed to The New India Assurance Co. Ltd., 87 Mahatma Gandhi Road, Fort, Mumbai 400 001 reveals that the company received 10 documents cited in that letter on 21.01.08. Thus, the Insurance Company has not turned down the claim on the ground that she preferred claim beyond the period as stated in the condition. To the contrary, after obtaining the claim prayer from Rasmoni Roy the Insurance Company demanded some documents which were duly sent by the complainant. In spite of that, the Insurance Company without settlement of the claim remained silent.
5
From the xerox copy of the policy and copy of death certificate filed in the instant case, it is crystal clear that Swapan Roy had an insurance policy to the tune of Rs. 1,00,000/- and the complainant was the nominee of the said policy. Swapan Roy died by poisonous snake bite as manifest from the xerox copy of the document given by the Superintendent, District Hospital Nadia.
The Insurance Company in spite of receipt of the required documents from the complainant has not settled the claim in her favour which obviously deficiency in service.
Thus, the complainant is entitled to get relief.
Scanning the facts and circumstances of this case and bearing in mind the ruling 2007, CTJ 240 (CP) (NCDRC) (March, 07) which provides as follows,
“The award of compensation to an individual by public authority not only compensates and satisfies him personally but also helps in curing the social evil of harassing the public.” This part succinctly discussed by Apex Court in Lucknow Development Authority vs. M.K.Gupta (1993) CTJ 929 (SC) (CP) as “Harassment of a common man by public authorities is socially abhorring and legally in permissible. It may harm him personally but the injury to society is far more grievous. Crime and corruption thrives and prosper in the society due to lack of public resistance. Nothing is more damaging than the feeling of helplessness. An ordinary citizen instead of complaining and fighting succumbs to the pressure of undesirable functioning in offices instead of standing against it. Therefore, the award of compensation for harassment by public authorities not only compensates the individual, satisfies him personally but helps in curing social evil. It may result in improving the work culture and help in changing the outlook.”, we are of opinion that if Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand) only is awarded as compensation for the harassment and mental agony of the complainant and the member of her family, that may extenuate the grievance of the complainant.
Hence,
6
Ordered,
That the case of the complainant is allowed on contest with cost of Rs. 1,000/- (Rupees one thousand) only.
The OP No. 2 & 3 are directed to pay the sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- to the complainant either jointly or severally with interest @ 10% per annum from 20.11.08 i.e., the date of filing of this case till today (30.07.09, the date of disposal of this case). They are further directed to pay Rs. 1,000/- as cost and Rs. 10,000/- as compensation in all Rs. 11,000/- (Rupees eleven thousand) only and also Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh) only with above cited interest to the complainant either jointly or severally within 40 days from the date o his order failing which the entire amount will accrue interest @ 9% per annum till the date of entire payment from the date of this order.
We pass no order of relief against the OP No. 1, 4 & 5.
Hand over a copy of this order to the parties free of cost.
The case is disposed of by 4 months 13 days.
Dictated & corrected by me.
(D.K. Basu)
President
C.D.R.F., Nadia
(K. Mukhopadhyay) (S. Bhattacharya) (D.K. Basu)
Member Member President
C.D.R.F., Nadia C.D.R.F., Nadia C.D.R.F., Nadia
