Bihar

Gaya

CC/59/2012

Vikash Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

National Insurance Company Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Vinod Kumar Sharma

27 Sep 2016

ORDER

In the court of District Consumer Forum, Gaya

Consumer Complainant Case No. - 59 of 2012

Vikash Kumar son of late Laxmi Narayan Sahu village Pai Bigha P.S- Belaganj District Gaya....Complainant

V/s

1.   The Senior Divisional Manager NIC Limited Division III Shakespeare Sarani path 6^th floor Kolkata-700071.

2. Divisional Manager National Insurance Company Limited Shanti market Church Road Gaya.-823001

3. Divisional Manager Golden Trust Financial Service 16 R.N Mukherjee Road Kolkata.-700001

4. Branch Manager Golden Trust Financial services Janki Bhawan 1^st floor, K.P. Road Gaya....OP

Present:
 1. Shri Ramesh Chandra Singh..... President

 2. Syed Mohtashim Akhtar....Male Member

 3. Smt. Sunita Kumari ....Female Member

          Dated:- 27^th Sep of

                                                ORDER

                   1.    The instant complainant case has been filed against the opposite parties  by the complainant Vikash Kumar for deficiency in service and to get relief as insured accidental claim 5 lakh, cost of correspondence ₹2.     In brief, the case of the complainant is that his brother Suresh Kumar resident of village Pai Bisha P.S.  Belaganj, District, Gaya had taken Group Personal Accident Policy bearing Policy No. th June th June rd March nd March rd July th November rd March

             4.      The cause of action arose on 7^th June rd July rd March

                             5. Notices were issued to the opposite party on which they appeared and filed written statement on behalf of opposite party No. 1 and 2 and also by the opposite party No. 3 and 4 which were submitted separately.

6.           As per a written statement submitted on behalf of opposite party No. 1 and 2 the complaint is not maintainable either on facts and in law. No cause of action a rose for the instant case. The case is bad for non jointer and miss jointer of the necessary parties. The word member of the relevant area Shri Mati Gita Devi have reported in his certificate dated 14^th November th June rd July th July th March

                 7.      Opposite party No. 3 and 4 stated in his written statement that Mr. Suresh Kumar obtained a personal accident insurance Policy of National Insurance Company Limited under a group Insurance Scheme which Policy No. was /02//rd March nd March th June

                             8. Main question of determination before this court is whether the complainant has been succeeded to prove the deficiency in service by the opposite parties and whether he is entitled to get relief as sought for.

                             9.      The following are admitted facts of the case:

(1)     The complainant's brother deceased Suresh Kumar obtained a Janata personal accident Insurance Policy of National Insurance Company Limited under a group Insurance Scheme through the facilitation of Golden Multi Services Club of GTFS. The said group Janata personal accident insurance Policy No.  in favor of Golden Multi Services Club of GTFS covering the  member Mr. Suresh Kumar (since deceased) for the period from 23^rd March nd March

(2)   On 30 July th July th September th November th November

                             10.    The submission of opposite party No. 3 and 4 that as per Memorandum of understanding existing amongst National Insurance Company Limited and the opposite party No. 3 and 4 Golden Multi Services Club of GTFS has power to extend the insurance coverage to its members Mr. Suresh Kumar under the  said Group Janata personal accident insurance Policy and National Insurance Company Limited has an exclusive right and authority to entertain process and settlement of such claim and Golden Multi Services Club of GTFS have no role  to pay in this regard or any of authority being vested to them in so far as claim settlement, payment of Insurance claim, delayed settlement of claim, rejection of  claim is concern and so no liability attaches to them for deficiency in service has been not denied by the Opposite Party No. 1 and 2.

                             11.        The points of contest between the parties are being discussed categorically.

                                12.    It is submitted by the learning counsel appearing on the behalf of opposite parties that the claim has been not filed within 30 days from the date of accident. This forum has no jurisdiction to try the case.

                             13.              The complainant has not submitted the driving license of insured. The complainant has also not submitted the Claim Form properly and not signed the declaration column of the claim. He has not given right income. Rest is subject of prove.

                             14.              It appears from the Xerox copy of Policy certificate No. /01//rd March nd March th June th June and 4 on 23^rd July th September

                                      15.  Hence, considering the documents and evidences on affidavits filed on behalf of both parties we are of the opinion that the Opposite Party No. 1 and 2 have caused deficiency in service and the complaint is entitled to get the insured amount rupees ₹

                   16.   We, therefore, direct the opposite party No. 1 and 2 to pay ₹

           Dictated and corrected

Female Member        Male Member                          President

Sunita Kumari               Syed Mohtashim Akhtar       Ramesh Chandra Singh