Heard learned counsel for both sides.
2. Here is an appeal filed u/s 15 of the erstwhile Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter called the ‘Act’). Parties to this appeal shall be referred to with reference to their respective status before the District Forum.
3. The case of the complainant in nutshell is that her husband one Bapi Prasad Naik has purchased LIC policy bearing No.583763995 for sum assured of Rs.5,00,000/-. It is alleged inter alia that before the policy purchased he was unmarried and as such declared his mother Debaki Naik as nominee. Complainant alleged that she married to deceased Bapi Prasad after the policy was purchased. During subsistence of policy Bapi Prasad Naik expired on 16.9.2014. After death of her husband she claimed for settlement of the policy but OP Nos. 1 to 3 proceeded to settle the claim in favour of the nominee – OP No.4. Alleging deficiency of service on the part of the OPs the complaint was filed.
4. OP filed written version stating that the complaint is not maintainable. According to the OP the deceased life assured has nominated his mother Debaki Naik and as per the procedure laid down u/s 39 of the Insurance Act the matter would be settled in favour of the nominee. Apart from this, it averred that the learned District Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint first as it dwells purely on succession matter, which would be decided in the civil court. Therefore, there was no any deficiency of service on their part and the complaint should be dismissed.
5. After hearing both parties, the learned District Forum passed the following impugned order:-
“xxx xxx xxx
Heard the case from the parties, perused the complaint petition, written statement and documents available in the records it was found that, the matter of dispute in complaint petition in respect to the settlement of insurance claim of the deceased life assured involved complicated question of fact and law. The remedies seek in complaint is not adjudicable in summary jurisdiction before this Forum. As such the complaint is not maintainable and liable to be dismissed.”
6. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the learned District Forum has committed error in law by dismissing the complaint without understanding the position of law. According to him, the deceased assured has made his mother as nomine as he was bachelor. Later the complainant being married to the insured is entitled to the said amount. Learned District Forum ought to have understood the fact and law.
7. Learned counsel for the appellant further submitted that the learned District Forum have not applied the judicial mind to the provisions of law because Section - 3 of the Act stated that the provision of the Act are in addition to but not in derogation of the provision of any other law. So the complaint can be disposed of by exercising the power available under the Act. Even if it is following the summery procedure, the complicated question of fact and law can be decided by the learned District Forum to which the learned District Forum refused to exercise the jurisdiction. However, he submitted to set aside the impugned order by allowing the appeal.
8. Learned counsel for respondent Nos. 1 to 3 submitted that they have no any objection to release the amount but the mother - nominee and widow of the insured both are claiming to pay the same.
9. Considered the submission of learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the DFR including the impugned order.
10. The onus lies on the complainant to prove the deficiency of service on the part of the OPs.
11. It is admitted fact that Bapi Prasad Naik was the insured and during currency of the policy the insured died. Complainant has produced the death certificate, legal heir certificate of Bapi Prasad Naik and the policy bond. The policy shows that it was purchased by Bapi Prasad Naik and nominee was Debaki Naik. It was purchased only on 29.9.2010. The copy of the invitation card shows that the marriage was solemnized between Bapi Prasad Naik and Sangita Rani Choudhury. The marriage certificate also shows that they have married each other on 22.7.2013.
12. Be that as it may, the fact remains that the complainant became wife of Bapi Prasad Naik after the policy was purchased. The legal heir certificate issued by the Tahasildar shows that the present complainant, the nominee Debaki Naik, the mother (OP No.4) and Tribhuban Naik, the father are the legal heirs. The death certificate show that on 16.9.2014 Bapi Prasad Naik expired. These documents are proved by the complainant but these documents have not been discussed by the learned District Forum at all
13. According to Section – 8 of Hindu Succession Act, 1956, the property of deceased Bapi Prasad Naik would be devolved on Class- I heirs and in their absence it would be on Class – II heir. Undoubtedly, mother and widow are Class – I heir and father is class II heir. As per section 8 of Hindu Succession Act widow and mother would succeed the property simultaneously.
14. The OPs – LICI took the plea that under the nomination rules, the nominee is entitled to the sum assured but when there are legal heirs available as per the above discussion, the sum assured should be disbursed to the widow of the insured and the mother - nominee. There is no complicated question of fact and law involved in this case. Therefore, this Commission disagree with the view of the learned District Forum and herby set aside the impugned order by allowing the appeal.
15. In the result, the complaint is also allowed by directing the OPs – LICI should disburse the sum assured by dividing same into two equal shares, i.e. 50% to the mother – nominee and 50% to the appellant – widow of the deceased - insured. This order would be carried out within 45 days from date of receipt of this order failing which same would carry 12% interest from the date of this order till date of payment. No cost.
DFR be sent back forthwith.
Supply free copy of this order to the respective parties or the copy of this order be downloaded from Confonet or Website of this Commission to treat same as copy supplied from this Commission.
