SMT. BANDANA ROY, PRESIDENT

                        The case of the complainant in short is that her husband was holder of a GIC Poloicy JANATA PERSONAL ACCIDENT POLICY, bearing No 4751220001799/E No. 47-30615 valid from  08.01.2000 to 07.01.2015. Husband of the complainant namely Gokul Mandal died in a road traffic accident  on 02.02.2014 and O/C Panskura PS started case No. 50/14 dated 02.0214 U/S 279/304(A) IPC.  The said policy was purchased from the New India Assurance Co Ltd through the Golden Trust Financial Service 16, RN Mukherjee Road, Kolkata 1.  A letter was sent to the Divisional Manager, of the OP No. 1 for early settlement of the JPA claim vide No. 47142390000002. The OP no. 1 sent a letter to the complainant on 27.05.14 for submitting necessary documents as per list and complainant sent the said documents on 04.08.2014. The Golden Trust Financial Service also sent a letter to the complainant on 11.08.2014 for submitting necessary documents.  The OP no. 1 subsequently denied the claim  on the ground that the husband of the complainant was not a worker  or nor he was associated with any kind of job with M/S. GTFS and on physical meeting with the office, the office of the OP no1 assured to  settle the  matter very soon.  The OP no.1 thereafter sent a letter to the OP no. 2 for settlement of the claim as early as possible but the OPs are not yet settling the claim of the JPS policy of late Gokul Mandal till date.

                       So, the complainant has been compelled to file this complaint case against the OPs claiming payment of Rs. 1,00,000/- from the OPs  with interest and other reliefs.

                        All the three OPs appeared and contested the case by filing separate written versions. All of them prayed for dismissal of the case on various ground of law.

           The specific case of the OP no.1 is that the scheme of Group Janata Insurance Policy was introduced  by virtue of an agreement and the OPs for the very purpose of such insurance coverage as embodied in that agreement both parties are to abide by such terms  of agreement  and shall act on Utmost Good Faith amongst them in collecting the premiums. All the documents and relating to the appointment , joining performance etc of the victim in the service with Golden Trust  Financial Services are not available to this OP and OP no 3 are availing the policy fraudulently.  The OP no 3 lost good faith with the OP’s entrusted policy as because the victim could not come under the scheme of the policy ; only the OP no. 3 has manufactured the policy concealing detail particulars of the victim. It is the further case of this OP that several reminders have been given to the  complainant for furnishing necessary documents  but the complainant could not. So, this case is liable to be dismissed and the OP no. 3  is liable for all the odds.

           The OP no 2 contended in their written version that the complainant can not get any relief in this case for violation of the terms and conditions of the Memorendum of Undertaking  dated 30.12.1998 by the OP no. 2 . The OP no. 3 was an agent of the OP no. 1 and they also cannot avoid the liability of  satisfaction of the claim of the complainant.  This OP never issued any single policy  in favour of the husband of the complainant but issued a master policy for so many persons as stated to be investors/field workers/staff member of the GTFS and  the policy  was so issued on good faith on the declaration of the OP no 3 at the time of issuance of the policy. The instant policy of the victim had been procured in otherwise manner and the same is treated as void and invalid policy ab initio . Apart from all those facts the OP no. 2 states that the complaint case is barred by limitation.

           The specific case of the OP no 3 is that Gokul Mondal was a field worker  of this OP no 3 who obtained a Janata Personal Accident Insurance covered of the OP no 1 under a group  insurance scheme through the facilitation of this OP no 3 after receipt of due premium.  This OP stated that they acted bona fide and within the bounds of their authority and there has been no negligence or deficiency in service on their part. They are not responsible for the non settlement of the repudiation of the claim of the claimant.

The points require discussion are whether the case is maintainable and whether the complainant is entitled to get the reliefs  as prayed for.

Decision with reasons

            Both the points are taken up together for consideration for the sake of convenience.

            We have perused the entire materials on record

            Before discussing anything  we have to bank upon the statement made by the OP no. 3 in paragraph 2 of their written version where the OP no. 3 has stated that from the very beginning  in a patch SLPs pending before the  Hon’ble Supreme Court of India involving the same issue of Field Workers  of the Golden Trust Financial Service and the OP no. 1 Insurance Company, the Hon’ble Apex Court  has directed the Insurer herein vide orders dated 29.05.16, 29.07.16 and 25.11.2016 to pay the entire decretal amount to the Nominee  without security pending the final outcome of the said SLPS. Following that same orders the Hon’ble National Comission too passed similar orders dated 13.04.2017 in both RP No. 1752 of 2016 and RP No. 122 of 2016. Order dated 05.07.20-17 passed in RP No. 790 of 2017 is also very pertinent in this regard.

            OP No. 3 has filed copy of said orders and also the MOU along with their written notes of argument.  It appears that under the MOU the OP no. 3 was  only obliged to collect premiums from the proposers  and to remit the same  to the OP no.1 New India Assurance Co. Ltd by consolidated chqeue with a list of insured persons Apart from this  there had been no other liability to be borne by the OP No. 3 Golden Trust Financial Services in this regard.

It appears that New India Assurance Co. Ltd  will be solely  and directly responsible  in case of any claim contingent  upon death and or injury of the insured persons subject to terms and conditions, warrantee and exclusion of the policy concerned. From the copy of the judgment of Hon’’ble  Justice P K Chattopathyay, reported ion 2005(3) CHN 154 ( in the case of Bimal Chandra Manna,Vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd and others) identify of the insured persons as a field worker  as well as the relationship  between the insured person  and Golden Trust Financial Services being insured /facilitator  have been well elaborately dealth with and amplified giving appropriate importance to the premium forwarding  list, premium forwarding letter mentioning   the status  of the insured person as field worker/Investor and acknowledgement by New India Assurance Co. Ltd through an affidavit which had been deemed by the said  Hon’ble Justice Pranab Kumar Chattopadhyay as sufficient proof of the status of the insured persons with respect to Golden Trust  Financial Service Ltd and  it has been alleged by the OP no. 3  that said judgment of the Hon’ble Justice P K Chattopadhhay  has been accepted by the OP no. 1 without any demur.  From the copy of the order of Hon’ble Supreme Court  and Hon’ble National Commission  it appears that  in all the cases, the Hon’ble Supreme Court and National Commission  it has been ordered  that “ As an interim measure  it is directed that the Insurer shall deposit 50%  of the amount before the National Commission Dispute Forum within 4 weeks  so that claimant shall be entitled to withdraw the same without furnishing any security. But that order was passed without prejudice  to  the contention raised in the Special Leave petition.

            As the facts of this case  is the same and whether there was any final order  of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in this regard  we also direct the OP no1  to pay the complainant 50% of the claimed amount i.e Rs. 50,000/- and / or interest thereon at the rate of 9% if not paid within time, till  actual payment is made and we hold that this will serve the purpose of the complainant.

In view of the  aforesaid discussion we are of the view that  the complainant is entitled to get the relief, in terms of the directives of the Hon’ble Supreme Court.

            In view of the aforesaid discussion we are not inclined to impose any compensation or  litigation cost on the OPs.

            Both the points are answered accordingly.

            Hence, it is

O R D E R E D

That CC/571 of 2017 be and the same is  allowed on contest against all the OPs.

The OPs No. 1 and 2 are directed to pay Rs. 50,000/-  to the complainant within one month from the date of this over, failing which the said OPs will be liable to pay interest @9% p.a. on the aforesaid amount till the date of realization of the awarded amount. In default, the complainant will be entitled to put this order into execution as per law.

Let copy of the judgment be supplied to all the parties free of cost.