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 party to pay the insured amount of Rs. 3,00,000/- in the name of the complainant Shiv Jee Kumar.
- To pay Rs. 5,000/- ( Rs. Five Thousand only ) as compensation and litigation costs.
- The facts of this case lies in a narrow compass which is as follows:-
This case has been filed by the complainant no. 1 on behalf of his minor son namely Kanhaya Kumar who has been made complainant no. 2 in this case. It appears that complainant no. 1 is the father of complainant no. 2.
It is the case of the complainant’s that one Sri Baidyanath Sharma had purchased a Janta personal accident policy vide annexure – 1 from National Insurance company Ltd. vide policy no. 100300/47/01/9600022/02/96/30442 covering period from 31.03.2003 to 30.03.2018 for a sum of Rs. 3,00,000/-. In the aforesaid policy one Kanhaya Kumar was made nominee as he was nephew of Baidyanath Sharma. The aforesaid original policy holder Baidyanath Sharma died on 13.07.2006 due to drowning while attempting to save the life of a child. After the aforesaid occurrence, Barh P.S. UD case no. 10/2006 dated 13.07.2006 was instituted as will appear from annexure – 2. After investigation, final form was submitted which is annexed with annexure – 2. Thereafter, postmortem was done at Sub – Divisional Hospital Barh on same day i.e. on 13.07.2006. the copy of post mortem report is annexed as annexure – 3. The complainant thereafter informed the opposite party no. 3 ( GTFS) at Barh Branch on 19.07.2006 vide annexure – 4. Thereafter the claim Form issued by National Insurance Company Ltd. was duly filled by the complainant and the same was deposited at GTFS Barh on 06.09.2006 vide annexure – 5 with all relevant documents. Thereafter opposite party no. 3 ( GTFS) sent a letter to Senior Divisional Manager National Insurance Company Ltd. Kolkatta to acknowledge the receipt and do the needful about the claim of the complainant. This letter contained the list of documents which were attached with the claim formof the complainant. Another letter was also sent by GTFS to Senior Divisional Manager National Insurance Company Ltd. kolkatta on 11.11.2006 which has been also annexed by the complainant with this complaint petition. Thereafter the complainant also sent a letter to Senior Divisional Manager National Insurance Company Ltd. kolkatta requesting him to decide his claim.
It is the case of the complainant that despite submission of claim form with all the documents to Senior Divisional Manager National Insurance Company Ltd. kolkatta through GTFS besides reminder by him vide annexure – 7 the insurance company has not decided the claim of the complainant and has not given claim amount.
A written statement has also been filed on behalf of opposite party no. 3 GTFS in Para – 9 of which the following facts have been asserted “ that the said claim documents after verification and checking could be furnished to National Insurance Company Ltd. Division – III Kolkatta vide Golden Multi Services Club of GTFS letters dated 05.10.2006 and 11.11.2006 for processing settlement of the claim on merit. Subsequently, a representation of the complainant dated 28.04.2007 has been sent to National Insurance Company Ltd. Division – III, 8 India Exchange Place, Kolkatta – 700001 by Golden Multi Service Club of GTFS on 07.05.2007 requesting for early settlement but no response was there from national Insurance Company Ltd. Division – III Kolkatta in this regard.”
The copy of aforesaid letters has also been annexed by the opposite party no. 3 with written statement as annexure – C series. It appears that opposite party no. 3 has fully supported the claim of the complainant.
On behalf of opposite party no. 1 and 2 written statement has also been filed, in Para – 7 of the which the following facts have been asserted “ it is relevant to mention here that the answering opposite parties had not received any information regarding the alleged occurrence by the complainants or by the GTFS within prescribed period of the policy terms and conditions.”
It has been also asserted that in complaint petition Patna Office National Insurance Company Ltd. had been added as opposite party no. 2. Whereas before filing this all the correspondence have been made with Kolkatta office of Insurance Company.
In Para – 11 of written statement filed by opposite party no. 1 and 2 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 complainant is relying upon, is yet to be verified from the office record, if found to be fake or not valid, opposite party no. 1 and 2 will be not liable to pay any compensation.”
-
We have narrated the brief facts asserted by parties in foregoing paragraphs.
It goes without saying that after death of the insured person the complainant’s have submitted all relevant documents with claim form with opposite party no. 3 as will appears from annexure – 4 and 5 of the complaint petition.
This fact have been also accepted by opposite party no. 3 in Para – 8, 9 and 10 as well as Annexure – C series of written statement filed by opposite party no. 3.
The aforesaid facts have not been categorically denied by opposite party no. 1 and 2 rather a lame excuse has been taken that in the instant complaint, complainant has added Patna Office of National Insurance company Ltd. as opposite party no. 2 while all correspondence in question before filing this case have been made with Kolkatta office of National Insurance company Ltd. The opposite party no. 1 and 2 have also stated that the documents on which the complainant has relied are yet to be verified.
It is surprising that this complaint has been filed in this Forum on 08.08.2007 and the written statement on behalf of opposite party no. 1 and 2 appears to be filed in 2009 because from affidavit portion of the written statement filed by opposite party no. 1 and 2, it appears that it was affidavited on 10.06.2009.
It is surprising that till the hearing of this case in 2005 no any chit of paper has been provided by opposite party no. 1 and 2 whether the documents filed by the complainant have been verified or not?
From different annexure such as annexure – C series annexed with the written statement of opposite party no. 3 it appears that the opposite party no. 1 and 2 were informed immediately and they were also impressed upon by the complainant as well as opposite party no. 3 to decide the claim of the complainant but opposite party no. 1 and 2 have not taken pain to inform this forum about the steps taken by them.
In our opinion the documents annexed with the complaint petition containing from annexure – 1 to 7 series as well as annexure – C series of written stamen of opposite party no. 3 are relevant documents enabling the opposite party no. 1 and 2 to decide the claim of the complainant but opposite party no. 1 and 2 are taking lame excuse that they are to verify the documents of the complainant whether they are fake or genuine.
In our opinion the opposite party no. 1 and 2 have been allowed more than sufficient time for such verification and on this pretext, we are not going to allow further time in this regard to opposite party no. 1 and 2 whose conduct appears to deplorable and definitely disclose deficiency on their part.
For the discussion made above we direct opposite party no. 1 and 2 to pay the insurance amount of the complainant i.e. Rs. 3,00,000/- ( vide annexure – 1 ) to the complainant no. 2 through complainant no. 1 within the period of two months from the date of receipt of this order or certified copy of this order failing which the opposite party no. 1 and 2 will have to pay an interest @ 12% on the aforesaid insured amount i.e. Rs. 3,00,000/- till its final payment.
Opposite party no. 1 and 2 are further directed to pay Rs. 25,000/- ( Rs. Twenty Five Thousand only ) to the complainant by way of compensation and litigation costs within the period of two months.
Accordingly this complaint petition stands allowed to the extent indicated above.
Member President
