BEFORE THE DISTRICT FORUM: KURNOOL
Present: Sri.K.V.H.Prasad,B.A.,LL.B.,President
And
Smt. C.Preethi, M.A.LL.B., Lady Member
Friday the 6th day of June, 2008
C.C.No. 63/07
Between:
S. Rukmath alias Rukmoddin, S/o. Bade Saheb,
H.No.118/A, Nidzur Village and Mandal, Kurnool District … Complainant
Versus
1. National Insurance Company Limited,Represented by its Divisional Manager,
Division-III, Shakesphere Sarani, 6th Floor, Kolkata.
2. National Insurance Company Limited, Represented by its Branch Manager,
Tula Complex, Gandhi Nagar,Kurnool.
3. Golden Multi Services Club Limited, Represented by its Director,
S.B Monsoon, 16, R.N. Mukharjee Road, Kolkata-700 001.
4. Golden Multi Services Club Limited, Represented by its Branch In-charge,
U-con Plaza, III Floor, Kurnool. … Opposite parties
This complaint is coming on this day for orders in the presence of Sri. S. Zubair, Advocate, for the complainant, and opposite party No.1 and 3 set exparte and Sri. D.A.A.Ahamad, for opposite party No.2 and Sri.M. Azmathulla, Advocatae for opposite party No.4 and upon perusing the material papers on record, the Forum made the following:-
ORDER
(As per Sri. K.V.H.Prasad, President)
C.C.No.63/07
1. This case of the complainant is filed U/s 12 of C.P. Act, 1986 seeking a direction on the opposite parties to pay to the complainant Rs.2,00,000/- towards policy amount, Rs.10,000/- as compensation for mental agony, 18% interest on the policy amount from the date of accident and cost of the case alleging himself as policy holder under Group Personal Accident Policy No.100300/42/04/8200012 for Rs.2,00,000/- for the period 1-12-2004 to 30-11-2009 and the non settlement of claim arising out of the accident occurred on 9-3-2006 to him where in the complainant lost his right leg and suffered a permanent total disability.
2. In pursuance of the receipt of the notice of this forum as to this case of the complainant, while the opposite parties 1 and 3 remained exparte to the case proceedings the opposite parties 2 and 4 contested the case alleging no deficiency on their part as no claim of the complainant as reached it through Golden Multi Services Club, Kolkata (OP.No.3) and the opposite party No.4 merely transmitted the collected premium as branch of opposite party No.3 and the claim of the complainant to opposite party No.3 and as per the memo of understanding in between opposite parties 1 and 3 the liability for settling the claim is with opposite party No.1 and so seeks dismissal of the complaint.
3. In substantiation of the contentions while the complainant side has taken reliance on Ex.A1 to A7 and his sworn affidavit in reiteration of his case, the opposite party side has taken reliance on documentary record in Ex.B1 and B2 and the sworn affidavit of opposite parties 2 and 4 in reiteration of its contentions.
4. Hence, the point for consideration is whether the complainant has established any deficiency of the opposite parties to hold their liability for the complainant’s claim.
5. The Ex.A1 is the Xerox of the alleged policy of the complainant which assures an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- to the insured – S. Rukmath – covering for the period 1-12-2004 to 30-11-2009 the risk of accidental death / permanent total disability subject to its terms and conditions, exclusions and definitions printed on overleaf. But said terms and conditions and exclusions etc., not provided by the complainant in Ex.A1 for their appreciation.
6. The Ex.A2 is the Xerox of the FIR in Crime No.24/06 of Jainath Police Station of Adilabad District registered U/s 337 IPC shows one Maratha Kailas S/o. Girnagi – cleaner of lorry No.NH29 6677 as complainant and one Rukmuddin – driver of the lorry – as accused. But it does not envisage the particulars of the injured nonetheless this complainant has injured as sustained any injury to his right leg, nor any injury certificate in the name of the complainant is filed to show of the injuries if any he sustained in said accident. When the sworn affidavit of the complainant says that he was the cleaner of the lorry at the time of accident but as the Ex.A2 shows some other name as cleaner there in there appears any relevancy of the Ex.A2 to the benefit of the complainant and to believe his contention as to accident and his sustaining injuries as alleged especially when his complaint in this case is also silent as to the place of accident and when the FIR was registered U/s 337 of IPC for simple injuries while the complainant alleges of sustaining of grievous injuries to him.
7. While the policy in Ex.A1 and Ex.A3 claim form stands on the name of Rukmath, the Ex.A6 the Xerox of disability certificate said to have been issued by Government General Hospital, Kurnool as 60% disability of a person by name Rukmuddin and bearing signature of one S. Rukmath as candidate. While the complaint and sworn affidavit of the complainant alleges S. Rukmath @ Rukmuddin as complainant and of 39 years old by the date of complaint, the Ex.A6 the disability certificate holds the age of Rukmuddin, to whom the said certificate was issued, as of 42 years old by 21-4-2006 i.e., date of its issual itself. Hence, there appears every bonafidee doubt on the identity of the injured with insured.
8. The Ex.A7 said to be Xerox of discharge summary relating to complainant remains to be of any avail and use to this case for want of its legibility.
9. While the Ex.A5 letter dated 9-2-2007 addressed by Golden Multi Service Club Limited, Kolkakta (OP.No.3) to Senior Divisional Manager , National Insurance Company Limited, Divisional III , Kolkata (OP.No.1) alleges that claim form submitted by Fathimabee, Wife and nominee of the complainant, says the disability was on account of motor bike accident occurred on 9-3-2006 but from the Ex.A2 any such thing could be inferable. The claim form in Ex.A3 as not only signed by one S. Rukmath but also by one Fathimabee in the event of death of the insured as the latter’s nominee and there being any contention that the insured died in said accident, there appears every doubt on the bonafidees of the complainant’s claim and any nexus of amputation of right leg to any alleged accident.
10. When the material so placed for appreciation by the complainants side is so doubtful in linking the alleged injury and disability acquired by the complainant to the alleged accident there appears any deficiency of non settlement on the part of the opposite party No.1 with whom the opposite party No.3 is said as having a memo of understanding vide Ex.B2 as to compensate the risk of the insured, even though the claim appears to have reached the opposite party No.1 insurance company for processing vide Ex.B1/A5 and A4.
11. consequently, there being any merit and force in the claim of the complainant at the liability of the opposite parties, the complaint is dismissed.
Dictated to the stenographer, transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced by us in the open bench on this the 6th day of June, 2008.
Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER PRESIDENT
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
Witnesses Examined
For the complainant :Nil For the opposite parties :Nil
List of exhibits marked for the complainant:-
Ex.A1. Xerox copy of policy bond.
Ex.A2. Xerox copy of FIR.
Ex.A3. Xerox copy of claim form
Ex.A4. Letter, dated 7-2-2007 of OP.No.3 to OP.No.1.
Ex.A5. Letter, dated 9-2-2007 of OP.No.3 to OP.No.1.
Ex.A6. Xerox copy of Disability Certificate.
Ex.A7. Discharge Summary Card.
List of exhibits marked for the opposite parties:
Ex.B1. Attested Xerox copy of Letter, dated 9-2-2007 of
OP.No.3 to OP.No.1.
Ex.B2 MOU between OP.No.1 and OP.No.3.
Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER PRESIDENT
Copy to:-
1. Sri.S. Zubair, Advocate, for complainant
2. Sri.D.A.A.Ahammad, Advocate, for opposite party No.2
3. Sri. M.Azmathulla, Advocate , for opposite party No.4.
Copy was made ready on:
Copy was dispatched on:
Copy was delivered to parties:
