IN THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, MURSHIDABAD AT BERHAMPORE.
CASE No. CC/90/2017.
Date of Filing: Date of Admission: Date of Disposal:
06.06.17 13.06.17 10.07.19
Complainant: Kalpana Ghosh,
W/o Late Chittaranjan Ghosh,
31, Naya Sarak Road,
PO&PS-Berhampore,
Dist-Murshidabad,
Pin-742101
-Vs-
Opposite Party: 1. The Branch Manager,
LICI Berhampore Branch,
B.O-446, K.N. Road,
PO&PS-Berhampore,
Dist-Murshidabad,
Pin-742101
2. The Manager, LICI Claims,
KSDO, Jivan Prabha DD-5,
Section-I, Salt Lake City,
Kolkata-700064
Agent/Advocate for the Complainant : Sri. Subhanjan Sengupta.
Agent/Advocate for the Opposite Party No.1 : Sri. Subhas Saha.
Agent/Advocate for the Opposite Party No.2 :
Present: Sri Asish Kumar Senapati………………….......President.
Smt. Aloka Bandyopadhyay……………………..Member.
FINAL ORDER
Asish Kumar Senapati, Presiding Member.
This is a complaint under section 12 of the CP Act, 1986.
One Kalpana Ghosh (here in after referred to as the Complainant) filed the case against the Branch Manager, LICI, Berhampore Branch & Anr. (here in after referred to as the OPs) praying for compensation alleging deficiency in service.
The sum and substance of the complaint case is as follows:-
The Complainant is an old lady who lost her Husband, Son and Daughter-in-law within a short period. Her son Bhaskar Ghosh, since diseased took one LIC policy being policy No.429941171 dated 12.12.12 of a sum assured Rs.1,50,000/- along with an accidental death benefit of Rs.1,50,000/-. Bhaskar Ghosh nominated his minor son Pranab Ghosh who is aged about 5 years. Bhaskar Ghosh died on 23.02.15. After death of Bhaskar Ghosh, Pranab Ghosh, son of Bhaskar Ghosh was being looked after by his grandmother, the Complainant. The Complainant went to the office of the OPs several times and filed an application claiming death benefit of her son but of no effect. Hence, the Complainant claimed Rs.3,00,000/- from the OPs and compensation and litigation cost of Rs.20,000/-
The OP No.1 contested the case by filing written version on 01.08.17, inter alia, denying the material allegations made out in the complaint contending that the Complainant is not nominee of Bhaskar Ghosh. The OP requested the Complainant to submit the prescription of Late Bhaskar Ghosh but she did not supply the same to the OP. The Complainant was asked to submit succession certificate or guardianship certificate for collecting money on behalf of minor Pranab Ghosh but the Complainant did not supply any documents. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP. The OP No.1 prays for dismissal of the complaint.
The OP No.2 did not contest the case in spite of service of notice.
On the basis of the above versions following points are framed for proper adjudication of the case :
Points for decision
- Is the Complainant case maintainable ?
- Has this Forum jurisdiction to entertain the complaint?
- Is there any deficiency in service on the part of the OPs, as alleged?
- Is the Complainant entitled to get any relief, as prayed for?
Point no.1
The Ld. Advocate for the Complainant submits that one Bhaskar Ghosh had an LIC policy under the OP No.1 and the Complainant is none but his mother. He submits that Bhaskar Ghosh appointed his minor son, Pranab Ghosh as nominee but the Complainant has filed the case as Pranab Ghosh is a minor aged about 6 ½ years. The Ld. Advocate for the OP No.1 submits that the Complainant is not a consumer and the case is not maintainable.
Having gone through the written complaint, written version and materials on record, we find that the Complainant is none but the mother of Bhaskar Ghosh, since diseased and she has stated that Pranab Ghosh, minor son of Bhaskar Ghosh has none to look after him except the Complainant.
Considering the circumstances, we think that the complaint case is maintainable.
Point No.2
The Ld. Advocate for the Complainant submits that the cause of action arose within the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum and the claimed amount is also within pecuniary limit of the District Forum.
On a careful consideration over the materials on record, we find that the cause of action arose within the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum and this Forum has pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. Both the points are thus disposed of.
Point Nos.3&4
The Ld. Advocate for the Complainant submits that nominee of Bhaskar Ghosh is the minor son Pranab Ghosh who is aged about 6 ½ years. He argues that the Complainant is a widow and she in unable to obtain succession certificate or guardianship certificate and it will take a long time. It is argued that the OP may be directed to settle the claim and to deposit the settled amount in the name of Pranab Ghosh in a scheme so that Pranab Ghosh may withdraw the settled amount with interest after attaining majority if the complainant fails to file guardianship certificate in the meantime.
The Ld. Advocate for the O.P. No..1 Submits that the O.P. No. 1 has no objection to settle the claim on receiving requisite documents but the OP is unable to disburse the amount to anyone except Pranab Ghosh, if no succession certificate or guardianship certificate is received.
We have gone through the written complaint, written version, evidence of the Complainant and documents filed by the Complainant. Admittedly, Bhaskar Ghosh, since diseased had an LIC policy being No. 429941171 sum assured under the basic plan Rs.1,50,000/- and Accidental Benefit Rider Sum assured Rs.1,50,000/-. Admittedly, Pranab Ghosh, son of Bhaskar Ghosh was nominee of that policy and the date of birth of Pranab Ghosh as recorded in the policy was 02.05.12. The OP No.1 has stated that the OP No.1 is not in a position to disburse the settled amount to anyone except Pranab Ghosh and Pranab Ghosh has no capacity to receive the settled amount due to his minority.
On a careful consideration, we find that Pranab Ghosh is the nominee of the LIC policy of Bhaskar Ghosh. The OP No.1 has not informed the Complainant about the procedure to be taken by the Complainant/Pranab Ghosh for receiving the amount due to death of Bhaskar Ghosh.
We think that the OPs have deficiency in service.
In our considered opinion, the OP No.1 may be directed to settle the claim due to death of Bhaskar Ghosh on receiving the application from Pranab Ghosh along with relevant documents. The OP No.1 has to inform in writing either the Complainant or Pranab Ghosh if any document is necessary and the OP may be directed to settle the claim within one month from the date of receiving the documents and application from the Complaiannt/Prnab Ghosh.
The OP may also be directed to deposit the settled amount in any scheme in the name of Pranab ghosh so that Pranab Ghosh may get interest on the settled amount till any one/complainant files claim for withdrawal of the amount supported by guardianship certificate/ attaining majority of Pranab Ghosh
The OPs may also be directed to disburse the amount to the guardian of Pranab Ghosh if guardianship certificate in respect of Pranab Ghosh isreceived during the period of minority of Pranab Ghosh.
Reasons for delay
The Case was filed on 06.06..17 and admitted on 13.06.17. This Forum tried its level best to dispose of the case as expeditiously as possible in terms of the provision under section 13(3A) of the CP Act,1986. Delay in disposal of the case has also been explained in the day to day orders.
In the result, the Consumer case succeeds.
Fees paid are correct. Hence, it is
Ordered
that the complaint case No. CC/90/2017 be and the same is hereby allowed on contest against the OPs.
The OPs are directed to settle the claim due to death of Bhaskar Ghosh on receiving application from Pranab Ghosh along with relevant documents.
The Complainant is directed to file application signed/executed by Pranab Ghosh to the O.P. No.1 for settlement of claim due to death of Bhaskar Ghosh in connection with LIC policy being No. 429941171 as early as possible along with relevant documents.
The OP No.1 is to inform in writing either the Complainant or Pranab Ghosh if any document is necessary and the OPs are directed to settle the claim within one month from the date of receiving the documents and application from the Complaiannt/Pranab Ghosh.
The OPs are also directed to deposit the settled amount in any scheme in the name of Pranab Ghosh and hand over the certificate to Pranab Ghosh so that Pranab Ghosh may get interest on the settled amount till attaining his majority/ till filing claim to withdraw the amount by the Complainant supported by guardianship certificate.
The OPs be directed to disburse the amount to the guardian of Pranab Ghosh if guardianship certificate in respect of Pranab Ghosh is received during the period of minority of Pranab Ghosh.
Let plain copy of this order be supplied free of cost, to each of the parties / Ld. Advocate/Agent on record, by hand /by post under proper acknowledgment as per rules, for information and necessary action.
The Final Order will also be available in the following Website:
confonet.nic.in
Dictated & corrected by me.
President
Member President.
