Present         (1)    Nisha Nath Ojha,   

                              District & Sessions Judge (Retd.)                                                                     President

                    (2)     Sri Sheo Shankar Prasad Singh,

                              Member

Date of Order : 24.06.2015

                    Sri Sheo Shankar Prasad Singh

1. In the instant case the Complainant has sought for following reliefs against the Opposite party:-

1. To pay claim amount i.e. 1,00,000/- ( Rs. One Lac only ) along with interest of 18% per annum till full and final payment
2. To pay the amount of Rs. 50,000/- as compensation.
3. To pay 5,000/- as litigation cost.

2. Brief facts of the case which led to the filing of this complaint are as follows:-

1. The complainant is the wife of Late Raj Ballabh Prasad @ Pawan Kumar, and she is as nominee of the deceased and the deceased was the owner of a Hero Honda Motorcycle no. BR-1AC/9368 and said vehicle was insured through the opposite parties along with the Personal Accidental Policy for Rs. 1,00,000/- ( Rs. One Lac only ) vide policy no. 210103/31/06/01/00000072 for the period from 19.05.2006 to 18.05.2007.
2. the insured Raj Ballabh Prasad @ Pawan Kumar meet a road accident with his said motorcycle on 11.03.2007 under the insurance period at and near Hajipur – Patna bridge due to the rash and negligently driving of an unknown Bus driver, when he was coming to home by his bike, and he died on spot, for which a F.I.R. was lodged vide Traffic Patna P.S. Case no. 62/2007 dated 11.03.2007.
3. after the said accidental death of the deceased his post – mortem has been conducted at N.M.C.H., Patna on same day.
4. After investigation, the police has submitted charge sheet against unknown Bus driver on 31.08.2007.
5. Just after the death of her husband on 09.04.2007 the complainant informed the opposite parties and after submission of charge sheet, the complainant obtained certified copy of charge sheet on 21.01.2008 and claimed Personal Accidental Insurance Claim of Rs. 1,00,000/- as her husband death P.A. claim from the instant opposite parties and submitted all relevant documents.
6. Thereafter several times the complainant approached the office of the opposite parties for the settlement of the claim, but no any affirmative response was given to the complainant.
7. Lastly on 18.08.2009, the complainant gave a letter to the opposite parties and requested for payment of the insurance claim but the opposite parties did not pay the insured amount till date and after seeing the harassing attitude of the opposite parties the instant complaint is being filed by the complainant.

3. The Opposite Party no. 1 and 2 in their Written Statement has submitted as follows :-

1. The present case is barred by law of limitation as stipulated in the Act and it is wrong submission of the complainant as stated in her petition that the same is filed well within the stipulated period of two years as provided in law so he present case is fit to be dismissed with cost.
2. The complainant has not filed any succession certificate with regards to the above claim as claimed by her nor she has obtained in her claim application that she is legally married wife of the deceased Raj Ballabh Prasad hence in absence of the said certificate ( marriage certificate of succession certificate ) the complainant is not entitled to get any compensation of any nature.
3. It is fact that the complainant’s husband has insured his new motorcycle Hero Honda from the United India Insurance Co. Ltd. effective from 19.05.2006 to mid – night on 18.05.2007 but the manner of Accident as stated in the F.I.R. is subject to prove the accident by the complainant. It is submitted that the informant Suman Kumar who lodged case before Traffic P.S., Patna bearing Traffic P.S. Case no. 62/07 dated 11.03.2007 against the unknown driver who has alleged therein that he has been informed by stranger that the driver of Bus was driven rashly and negligently causing damage to the vehicle and in course of said accident by unknown driver of the bus the husband of the complainant died spontaneously is quite matter of proof as the informant has lodged the present case on the basis of hearsay evidence which is not admissible in law.
4. From the perusal of the F.I.R. it is crystal clear that the statement given by one Suman Kumar who is not eye witness to the occurrence and as such his statement made in F.I.R. shall not be  treated as gospel truth and the victim died due to rash and negligent driving of the unknown driver of the bus as alleged.
5. The complainant has not even dared to inform the office of the opposite parties nor she lodged any grievance in its office nor she has lodged any claim in the office of the opposite parties immediately after the accident. ( Vide Annexure – A )
6. The present complaint case is quite premature as the same has not been repudiated by the opposite party hence in this light of submission the present case as filed by the complainant may be dismissed in this score alone.
7. The content of the complaint petition has to be proved by the complainant itself and this petitioner opposite parties no. 1 and 2 has no knowledge about the said accident and the death of  Raj Ballabh Prasad caused due to bus accident during the risk covering period.

We have gone through the record and have heard the learned counsel of the opposite parties only as non has appeared for the complainant at the hearing stage.

After going through the written statement we are of the opinion that the assertions made in the written statement is not convincing as in one Para it has been submitted that complainant has not lodged any claim in their office immediately after the accident and in other Para it has been submitted that the present complaint case is quite premature as the same has not been repudiated by them.

The matter relates to the year 2007 and it is now 2015and the Insurance Company is still sitting over the matter and thus the complainant, who is a widow, is unnecessarily being harassed.

All this goes to prove that opposite parties are responsible for deficiency in service.

Accordingly, We direct the opposite party no. 1 and 2 jointly and severally to pay to the complainant Rs. 1,00,000/- ( Rs. One Lac only ) being the amount of Personal Accidental Claim along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date the claim was preferred and this interest will be paid till the amount is finally paid.

Aforesaid opposite parties are further directed to pay to the complainant Rs. 10,000/- ( Rs. Ten Thousand only ) as composite charges for compensation and litigation costs.

Thus this complaint case stands allowed to the extent indicated above.

                                        Member                                                         President