Order
The complainant Krishna Singh @ Sinha has filed this case for claim of Rs. 9,00,000/- arises from the death of her son. The sum assured amount Rs. 9,00,000/- and claim for Rs. 18,00000/- as double of sum assured with 9 % interest and further she has claim Rs. 10,000/- as litigation cost.
The case of complainant in berief appears from her complaint petition supported with an affidavit alleged therein that her only son namely Rohit Kr. Singh @ Anil Singh has purchased four policies from the o.p in his life time bearing no. 533115198, 534491026,534933191 and 534937024 in his name which are total for Rs. 9,00,000/- and the L.A has made the complainant as nominee in aforesaid four policies. She has further alleged that unfortunately her son Anil Singh was murdered by criminals on 03-09-2005 by which he succumbed to death and after death the complainant informed local police station Ahiyapur. The police Station has registered police case no. 313/2005 and has send the dead body to S.K.M.CH f Muzaffarpur for postmortem.
The complainant has further alleged that her husband was previously died and due to Death of her only son she became mentally upset, treated by relatives. In her absence from her house the house hold articles and ornaments etc. were taken away by the thieves but After search of certain papers kept in box she has find out the certain paper of policy from which she has made claim of accident of her son in writing to the o.p insurance company. The insurance company required certain papers she has replied to the o.p. insurance company that at the time of theft in her house the thieves have take away the papers only the available papers she has filed. She has informed the police regarding alleged theft which was registered P.S case no. 345/2005.
She has further alleged that after lapse of several months when the payment was not made by the insurance company and have not taken suitable steps for her payment. O.p send a letter to the complainant to Deposit the of death certificate, which was replied on 28-08-2007 that she has already deposited the said paper in the office of o.p and she is mentally upset and ill, As such she has not acquires the death certificate. She has deposited the Post Mortem report and requested to expedite the claim. She was frequently required to visit the office o.p. but having no alternative she has file the case with aforesaid claim.
The complainant has filed certain Xerox copy of papers such as letter dated 18-08-2007 issued by the op required the death certificate, postmortem report of Rohit Kr. Singh @ Chhota Anil Kr. Singh son of Late Devendra Pd. Singh ( husband of complainant), FIR of Ahiyapur P.s case no. 313/2005 under section 302/34, informant is complainant herself and bond paper. The complainant has further file Xerox copy of policy paper in which the name of Smt. Krishna Singh mother has been found mention as nominee of policy. 534937024 Dt. 28-04-2005 for Rs. 2,00000/- and 534933191 Dt. 28-02-2005 for RS. 5,0000/- claim declaration ,form made by complainant to the o.p dated 30-11-2010, certificate of crimination of Rohit Kr Singh at the head of o.p mentioning the two policies of L.A number as 53493319 and 534937042 and date of death is on 03-09-2005 at 11 AM. By murder. The certificate was issued without prejudice. Regarding the missing of two policy bond indorsed to officer in charge Kazi Mohammadpur by complainant herself dated 20-06-2011, copy of deposition of Ranjan Kr. As defense witness no.-2 in session trial case no. 341/2006 (so called brother of L.A as his father name is ( Kedar Kumar), copy of order dated 17-12-2005 of courts of Sri T.Nath J.M. First Class Muzaffarpur by which the court has taken cognizance for the offence under section 302/34 IPC, status report of policies.
In this case o.p. insurance company appeared and file his written statement dated 14-07-2010 supported with an affidavit alleged therein that the case is illegal, baseless, frivolous, misconceived and connected and hit by principles of limitation. The o.p has admitted the policy of L.A issued in his life time. The death certificate has not been submitted by the claimant even after repeated reminder as such date of death could not be ascertained, the Xerox copy of FIR, Postmortem report submitted by the complainant is not clearly visible. He has further alleged that if the date of death 03-09-2005 is taken as true as per the complaint petition, as such nothing is payable under the policy that the Policy no. 533115198 lapsed on January 2003 and policy no.- 534491026 was lapsed on March 2005 Much before the death of LA. He has further alleged that for consideration of remaining two policies Bearing no. 534933191 & 534937024 would not be considered, without submission of original death certificate, postmortem report, FIR ,Final report, charge sheet and cognizance order. The Complainant has informed the death of L.A in May 2007 which was replied by o.p vide letter dated 02-06-2007 & 18-08-2007 for consideration of policy in question. The death certificate is required. The complainant neither submitted the death certificate nor replied the said letter of o.p. There is no any latched in the part of o.p and there is no any deficiency arises against him.
O.P has filed Xerox copy of letter dated 02-06-07 and 18-08-2007 requiring the death certificate of LA and plain paper of declaration form, medical certificate, certificate of hospital treatment and certificate of crimination. He has further filed Xerox copy of policy paper bearing Policy no.- 534937024 dated 28-04-2005 for RS, 200000 and 534933191 dated 28-02-2005 for Rs. 500000/- in the name of L.A, claim declarations form , crimination certificate no other paper has been filed.
In this case intervener petition has been filed to intervene the case dated 27-08-2012 by Ranjan Kr. & Pankaj Kr. Son of Kedar Kunwar alleging there in that in this case four policies are standing in the name of Rohit Kr Singh alleging there in that the case for policies are standing in the name of Rohit Kr. Singh son of Kedar Kuwar has been shot dead. The petitioner are own brothers of diseased as such they are entitled to withdraw the claim mount. The complainant has initiate this case to grave the entire amount and applicant has prayed to add them as intervener to this case, against which the complainant has filed its rejoinder dated 11-10-2012. At the time of hearing on this matter by order dated 04-02-2013 the forum required the genological table from competent authority is required, accordingly the father of intervener has filed a petition on 14-02-2013 giving the detail of genological table and prayed to made them intervener of this case, against which the complainant has filed its rejoinder dated 05-06-2013 with a prayer to dismiss the intervener petition. The matter was heard by the forum and petition of intervener has been allowed by its order dated 17-06-2013 and the complainant was directed to implied them as o.p no. 2 , 3 &4 second set.
In this case intervener o.p has filed the Xerox copy of certain papers , such as deposition of complainant recorded in court of 5th additional session judge in session trial no. 341/2006 as prosecution witness no.3, copy of petition dated 04-07-2000 filed by complainant in the court of CJC Muzaffarpur in case no. 136/2000 in which it has been found mentioned by her that diseased Anil Singh is sister son of her husband , death the certificate of L.A issued by Mukhiya on 12-09-2005 mentioned the date of death of L.A is 03-09-2005 , Death certificate issued by Government of L.A mentioning the date of death is 03-09-2005 and his fathers name is found mentioned as Kedar Kuwar genological table dated 09-01-2014 issued by Mukhiya , Matriculation certificate of L.A in which father name is mentioned as Kedar Kuwar.
Intervener o.p no. 2 has filed his written statement dated 06-08-2013 supported with an affidavit alleging therein that the case is not maintainable in Eye of law as well as fact and liable to be dismissed. It is better connivance for this forum to consider the genological table from which is appears that the complainant is Mami of L.A and there is no any law of the land in India that Mami will inherit the estate of Bhagina and L.A has regularly paid the premium of policy of taking money from petitioners. L.A was killed on 03-09-2005 at the R/o Intervener o.p and the complainant with conspiracy in conclusion with some of his family members and laws made a claim before L.I.C Muzaffarpur without supplying the death certificate of L.A. The dead body of LA was received by the intervener o.p from S.K.M.CH. Muzaffarpur who has performed his last rituals and on the aforesaid ground they have prayed to entire claim amount acquired be granted in favour of intervener .
The o.p LIC has filed his written argument at 21-06-2018 mentioning the same fact as mentioned in his w.s . Only he has newly added the fact that claim amount can be given to the intervener o.p, because they are own brother of L.A and comes under the series of legal heirs further he has alleged that the case is time barred filed after 4 years death of L.A further he has alleged that he never refused the claim of complainant only, she is entitle to get the amount acquired from only two policies because two where lapsed. He has further alleged that due to death of one intervener the claim amount cannot be given to any other because it can be settled by the competent court and lastly prayed to dismiss this case.
Considering the facts and circumstances material available with the record as well as allegation of respective parties the o.p no.1 LIC has admitted the alleged policies bearing no.- 533115198, 534491026, 534933191 and 534937024, total Rs. 9 lakh out of which two policies where lapsed by not payment of premium before the death of L.A because L.A was died on 03-09-2005 lapsed police are 53315198 lapsed on January 2003 and 534491026 lapsed on March, 2005, before the death of L.A and further o.p has submitted that out to non submission of original death certificate, postmortem report, FIR, final, report, charge Sheet and cognizance order the matured amount of rest two policies bearing no.- 534933191 and 534937024 has been refused there is no latches on the part of o.p no.1 and the complainant is also admitted the said fact that the two policies of L.A bearing No.- 53115198 and 534491026 are already lapsed and the complainant is not protesting the said fact. O.p. no.1 has admitted that the complainant is nominee of the said policies as such it appears to say that o.p no.1 insurance company has no objected in payment of accidental claim of two policies mentioned above in the name of L.A to the complainant, date of death of L.A is also half heartedly accept but it is necessary to say that o.ps have no objection regarding the of date of death of L.A.
In this case intervener o.p No. 2 & 3 intervene case and have also admitted four policies of L.A out of which two where lapsed and they are claiming the accrue amount of rest. Two polices in their favour because they are the legal heirs of L.A and have filed genological table of family from it appears that the L.A is own brother of intervener of o.p but in this case main problem for adjudication as to where the nominee of L.A is entitled to get claim or legal heir . In this regard we are of the opinion as per several decisions of Honourable Courts that the nominee is only legally entitled to get the claim accrued amount as compensation. It is also come up before our mind that if it is not correct then why the provision for making nominee is prescribed, in ourbelieve the provision of the nominee is only to cut short litigation and any problem if arises in payment of claim amount. This is only made for legal entitlement and no one has right to challenge against the nominee. It is also accepted by the o.p no1. In our believe it appears to say that the intervener o.p by their appearance they lingered the financed adjudication under the hand of o.p no.1 insurance company. We will mentioning this fact only to clarify that when there is provision of nominee made by the insurance company for payment why they have rejected. As per their allegation they have refused the payment of two policies on the ground of death certificate not filed by the complainant but latter on in this case when the death certificate came before them they have commonly appear and say to pay the claim amount reasonably which the insurance company has not done so for. As per the written argument filed by the o.p no.1 it appears that he is also objected the claim of complainant by taking the plea of heirs, it is baseless, wrong interpretation taken by the o.p no.1 why they have cooperate the intervener o.p. the reason best know to them.
Considering the facts and circumstances and above adjudication it appear before us that the complainant is found able to prove the accident claim of L.A and the complainant is nominee of the policies out of them two policies are admittedly running and in meanwhile L.A was died as such case of complainant is allowed partly and the o.p no. 1 is directed to pay the claim of policy no.- 534937024, for Rs. 2 lakh and 534933191 for Rs. 5 lakh assured sum of aforesaid two polices total Rs. 7 lakh which are payable in double as such the o.p no. 1 is directed to pay Rs. 14 lakh with interest @ 8% p.a from filing of this case to the complainant and further o.p no.1 is directed to pay Rs. 10,000/- as litigation cost, both the payment should be made within one month from the order through cheque in the account of complainant namely Krishna Sinha bearing no.- 55160100003725 existing in the Bank of Baroda for which she has filed petition and Xerox copy of pass book, in the name of complainant herself namely Krishna Sinha w/of Devendra Singh, Rajendpuri Speaker Chowk Muz. Intervenere o.p are not entitled for any amount of claim their claim is refused, if not made within time then the complainant is entitled to get it recover from the process of law.
