Presented by Sri B.K.Pati, Member <br /> The present complaint pertains to deficiency of service as provided under the Consumer Protection Act. Its brief history is as follows:-<br /> <br /> The petitioner's son, late Lokanath Bhue, was a policy holder under Opposite Party No.1(one) and No.2(two) through their agent Opposite Party No.3, vide policy No. U189135655, Dt.08/02/2006, bearing Sl. No. XT40 A.4971508, wherein the Policy holder had deposited installment of Rs.4,600/-(Rupees four thousand six hundred) only towards maturity amount of Rs.50,000/-(Rupees fifty thousand)only and accidental amount of Rs.75,000/-(Rupees seventy five thousand)only. The Policy holder died on Dt.16/06/2006 in an accidental death and the petitioner is the legal heir and nominee in the policy. The Petitioner served a notice to Opposite Party No.2(two) on Dt.11/07/2006 to pay the accidental amount of Rs.75,000/-(Rupees seventy five thousand)only. On receipt of the notice the Opposite Party No.2(two) and No.3(three) assured the Petitioner to pay the amount at the time but they did not do so. The Petitioner is suffering from mental agony and harassment for non-payment of the accidental claim dues. The Petitioner claims from the Opposite Parties Rs.75,000/- (Rupees seventy five thousand)only, for accidental claim, Rs.10,000/-(Rupees ten thousand)only, for mental agony and harassment and Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand)only for legal expenses with interest.<br /> <br /> The Opposite Parties, in their version, contend that the Complainant, having not invoked the arbitration clause provided in the agreement for redressal of the grievance, this Forum does not have jurisdiction to entertain the present Complaint. The death of the Policy holder is not accidental but due to physical assault and at present the Complainant can't take the benefit of accidental claim as per the rule and regulation of the Company and the Opposite Parties are not liable to pay the compensation amount to the Complainant. There is no cause of action and the Complaint is based on false, frivolous and baseless allegations, not having disclosed material facts and documents and, thus, the Complaint is liable to be dismissed. The Opposite Parties pray for dismissal of the complaint with cost. <br /> <br /> Perused the Complaint, the version of the Opposite Parties and copies of documents filed by both the Parties and find as follows:-<br /> <br /> The Opposite Parties' plea that since the Complainant has not invoked the arbitration clause provided for in the agreement, this Forum lacks jurisdiction to entertain the complaint, does not hold water. The mere provision of arbitration in the agreement can't take away the right of the Complainant to knock the door of the Consumer Forum for redressal of his grievances. No wonder, this Forum is legally competent to try the present complaint.<br /> <br /> The proceeding in the Criminal Court can't debar and preclude the Complainant to take benefit of the accidental claim unless otherwise either the Complainant fails to prove his case or the Opposite Parties disprove the same. The copies of documents filed by both the Parties, the proceeding, admittedly, going on in the Criminal Court, prove beyond dispute that the Complaint is not based on false and frivolous ground and there is sufficient cause of action for filing the same.<br /> The Complainant files Original Registration Letter giving the details of the scheme under which the deceased policy holder had paid Rs.4,600/-(Rupees four thousand six hundred) only towards the maturity amount (consideration) of Rs.50,000/-(Rupees fifty thousand)only. The Opposite Parties, in their version admit that besides the business of land purchase and allotment of land units to customers, it “provides compensation out of units holders social welfare fund ...................in the event of accidental death/permanent disability.”<br /> <br /> The Complainant files copy of a land-related Installment Deposit Scheme, Printed in Oriya, enumerating the details of the Schemes and their accidental insurance benefit, for the information of the customers. The original document was produced before the Forum, while hearing was going on in the presence of the Counsels of both the Parties. A printed-copy of the said document was shown and given to the deceased by Opposite Party No.3 while making him accept the scheme and deposit the sum of Rs.4,600/-(Rupees four thousand six hundred)only.<br /> <br /> Clause-I of the comparative Benefit Statement of the Scheme mentions that in case of accidental death, the benefit would be one and half time of the amount of investment. In the present case, the investment sum is Rs.50,000/-(Rupees fifty thousand)only and as such, the Complainant claims Rs.75,000/-(Rupees seventy five thousand)only in accordance with the above provision. This print-out clearly details the accident-related insurance benefits under various schemes. The Opposite Parties dangle before the prospective customers, the bait of the insurance benefits, along with the maturity/consideration amount and lure them into swallowing the same, by depositing money. Afterwards the Opposite Parties make every attempt to evade their responsibility, when , the question of payment arises. In the present case, the Complainant has been a victim of such deplorable act of the Opposite Parties.<br /> <br /> The proceeding in the Criminal Court as well as the copies of documents filed, confirm that the death of the Complainat's son was accidental, i.e. It was not a natural death.<br /> <br /> The Opposite Parties assail the Complainant's claim for not being complete in all respect. The Complainant is an illiterate tribal lady who has lost her son. It is the bounden duty of Opposite Parties to assist her to make the claim complete and proper in all respect, instead of repudiating and denying the same on mere technicalities. The Opposite Parties' ill-intention to take advantage of the Complainant's illiteracy, ignorance and economically and otherwise, backward and disadvantageous position, is most reprehensible.<br /> <br /> In sum and substance, the points that emerge out of the churning of the facts, and circumstances of the case are as follows:-<br /> (a) The deceased was lured into depositing for the scheme. In question, by showing the comparative benefit statement, a copy of which was given to the Complainant.<br /> (b) According to clause I of the comparative benefit and the benefit to be accrued, is one and half times of the consideration/investment amount i.e. Rs.75,000/-(Rupees seventy five thousand)only in the present case.<br /> © The death of the policy-holder was accidental i.e. Not natural and hence his nominee the Complainant is entitled to the benefit of Rs.75,000/-(Rupees seventy five thousand)only, the claim amount.<br /> (d) The Opposite Parties, by not making payment of the said amount, have committed deficiency of service against the Complainant.<br /> <br /> In view of the above finding, the Opposite Parties are directed, jointly and severally, to pay to the Complainant the claim amount of Rs.75,000/-(Rupees seventy five thousand)only and a cost/compensation of Rs.10,000/-(Rupees ten thousand)only, along with 9%(nine percent) interest per annum, chargeable from the date of filing of the case i.e. 15/11/2007, within 30(thirty) days hence, failing which the amount shall carry 12%(twenty percent) interest per annum till payment.<br /> Complaint allowed.<br />