Present (1) Nisha Nath Ojha,
District & Sessions Judge (Retd.) President
(2) Smt. Karishma Mandal,
Member
Date of Order : 30.04.2016
Nisha Nath Ojha
- In the instant case the Complainant has sought for following reliefs against the Opposite party:-
- To direct the opposite parties to pay Rs. 5,00,000/- ( Rs. Five Lakh only ) along with interest @ 18% per annum from the date of occurrence.
- To pay Rs. 50,000/- ( Rs. Fifty Thousand only ) as compensation.
- To pay Rs. 15,000/- (Rs. Fifteen Thousand only ) as litigation costs.
- The facts of this case lies in a narrow compass which is as follows:-
Complainant has asserted that on persuasion of agency of opposite party no. 2 complainant’s husband Late Binod Kumar took insurance policy on 01.09.2002 vide insurance policy no. 100300/47/01/9600022/01/96/30180 and serial no. 01521528/102030358056/040189907 for the period from 01.09.2002 to 31.08.2017 for the amount of Rs. 5,00,000/-. Complainant is nominee being wife of the insured.
It is further case of the complainant that while her husband was returning on 23.02.2007 at about 4:00 P.M. with brother after doing same market work he was interrupted by some criminals and was shot dead. Thereafter Jagdishpur P.S. Case No. 50/2007 dated 23.02.2007 was registered u/s 302, 379, 34 IPC. Then F.I.R. was lodged by BhorikYadav s/o Awadh Bihari Yadav. Thereafter investigation proceeded and police has submitted chargesheet no. 83/07 dated 23.05.2007 against accused persons and cognizance has been taken against the charge sheeted person by the competent court.
After the death of her husband the complainant informed the matter to GTFS Arah and opposite party no. 5 issued a claim form. The complainant thereafter submitted the claim form with all relevant documents such as policy certificate, death certificate, postmortem report, F.I.R., Chargesheet, voter ID, I.T.R. for the assessment year of 2003 – 2004 before opposite party no. 5 on 08.06.2007.
The complainant has also supplied all relevant documents demanded by opposite parties. Complainant has also further asserted that despite submitting the claim form with all the relevant documents when her grievance was not redressed then she met several persons in this regard.
Thereafter the complainant received a letter dated 04.04.2011. She was asked for wrong declaration in the proposal form with regard to I.T.R. The complainant was shocked and she gave legal notice for redressal of her grievance to opposite parties and filed a complaint case bearing no. 80/11 before Consumer Forum Arah. After some times the complainant filed a withdrawal of the complaint petition in the consumer Forum Arah in order to file a fresh complaint before the court of proper jurisdiction and thereafter this complaint has been filed.
On behalf of opposite party no. 1 and 3 a written statement has been filed stating therein that the claimant’s husband deceased Binod Kumar was murdered intentionally due to enmity and hence the murder does not come in purview of accidental death. The next ground taken by the opposite party no. 1 and 3 is that deceased Binod Kumar declared his income as Rs. 8,000/- per month in proposal form at the time of taking insurance policy for Rs. 5,00,000/-and complainant has submitted I.T. Return of her husband only Rs. 5,200/- per month income. Hence false statement was given in proposal form. In para – 12 of the written statement the following facts have been asserted “ that the present answering opposite parties are entitled for protection U/s 64 VB of the insurance Act, 1938 because the insurance policy on which the complaint is relying upon is yet to be verified from the office record and if the certificate of insurance after verification from the office record is found to be fake or not valid/effective at the material date and time of accident/occurrence, in that case the present opposite parties will not be held liable either to pay compensation to the complainant or to indemnify the insured.”
It has been submitted that due to aforesaid facts this complaint petition is not maintainable.
In the rejoinder cum written statement of opposite party no. 2, 4 and 5 it has been stated that the facts about insurance of Sri Binod Kumar is disputed. However it has been stated that no liability of anything can be attaches to the opposite parties for deficiency in service.
In Para – 9 of the aforesaid rejoinder cum written statement following facts have been stated “ that it may be pointed out that Mr. Binod Kumar died on the spot in a shootout on 23.02.2007 and the supporting claim documents along with form etc. was made available by the complainant to Golden Multi Services Club Ltd. on 08.06.2007 and the Golden Multi Services club Ltd. in turn after initial verification and checking furnished the said claim documents to National Insurance Company Division – III, Kolkatta.”
The facts asserted by both parties have been narrated in the foregoing paragraphs.
The first ground of rejecting the claim of the complainant by opposite party insurance company is that murder of deceased Binod Kumar was intentional and due to enmity. So far this ground is concerned we have gone through the F.I.R. and chargesheet. In F.I.R. it is only stated that the deceased has used to inform the administration about the illegal selling of wine and due to which one Huddal sah and other were annoyed.
In our opinion if the allegation is true the deceased has done service to the society aimed at checking illegal trade of wine. There is no trace in the F.I.R. that deceased had enmity with any person.
This fact is also crystal clear from charge sheet. Apart from it the complainant has relied on a judgment passed by Hon’ble National Consumer Dispute redressal Commission, New Delhi dated 21.05.2008 passed in Revision Petition no. 2824/07 ( Maya Devi Vrs. L.I.C. of India ) and this case is covered with this judgment.
The second ground of rejecting the claim of the complainant is that the deceased had furnished wrong information about his monthly income by disclosing his income as Rs. 8,000/- per month in the proposal form while from his return it appears that his income was Rs. 5,200/-.
It is needless to say that the deceased had taken the insurance in year 2002 and he died due to murder in 2007. There was sufficient time for the insurance officials to examine the details submitted by the complainant in his proposal form but they kept mum and when after death of the deceased nominee filed claim with all relevant documents then they have invented certain facts which may enable them to reject the claim of the complainant. These facts are minor facts and these facts cannot be made ground in devoiding widow for getting her due claim.
The opposite party no. 2, 4 and 5 have also supported the claim of the complainant.
For the discussion made above it is crystal clear that opposite party no. 1 and 3 have committed deficiency on their part and as such they are jointly and severally liable for the deficiency.
Hence we direct the opposite party no. 1 and 3 jointly and severally to pay the insurance claim of Rs. 5,00,000/- to the complainant within the period of three months from the date of receipt of this order or certified copy of this order failing which the opposite party no. 1 and 3 will have to pay interest @ 12% per annum on the aforesaid amount of Rs. 5,00,000/- till its final payment is made.
We further direct the opposite party no. 1 and 3 jointly and severally to pat Rs. 50,000/- ( Rs. Fifty Thousand only ) to the complainant by way of compensation and litigation costs within the period of three months.
Accordingly this complaint stands allowed to the extent indicated above.
Member President
