The instant case was instituted on the basis of a petition under Section 12 filed by one Jharna Das, Wife of Late Karmik Das, resident of Choprajhar School Para, P.O. & P.S.- Islampur, Dist.- Uttar Dinajpur which was registered as Consumer Case No. 55/17 in this Forum.

The fact of the case as revealed from the petition of complaint as well as from the evidence is that the complainant is the legal heir and wife of deceased Karmik Das who died by Motor vehicle accident which took place on 04/12/2012 at Kalaghach.

It has been further stated in the petition of complaint that the husband of the complainant purchased a Group Janata Personal Accident Insurance Policy vide Insurance Police No. 512301/47/02/00140 from the O.P on 08/05/2002 and the policy was valid from 08/05/2002 to 07/05/2017 and sum assured of Rs.3,00,000/-.

It has been further stated that during the continuance of the policy the husband of the complainant met with a bus accident on 04/12/2012 and died on the spot. As a result of which a criminal case was instituted before the Chopra Police Station being case No. 02/2012 dated 04/01/2012 under Section 279/337/338/304/427 against the driver of the offending vehicle.

The complainant being the legal heir and legal representative and wife of the deceased Karmik Das intimated the matter to the O.P Insurance Company Limited for getting accidental benefits.

The complainant after getting verbal assurance from the O.P submitted all relevant documents i.e Post Mortem report, copy of F.I.R, copy of Charge Sheet, copy of Death Certificate and copy of Insurance policy.

Thereafter, the complainant several times communicated to the O.P for taking steps for disbursing the amount due to the accidental benefit to the complainant. But ultimately there was no fruitful result. This is why the complainant has come before this Forum for getting the benefit.

The petition has been contested by the O.P/ Branch Manager of National Insurance Company by filling W.V. denying all the material allegations as leveled against the O.P contending inter alia that the instant case is not maintainable. There is no cause of action for filling the suit and the case has been filed for suppressing the real facts and the case is not maintainable in law.

The definite defence case is that the opposite party Golden Trust Financial services was  a partnership firm and its duty was to mobilize of funds on behalf of Unit Trust of India, State Bank of India Mutual Funds etc. It is alleged that to enhance the business it was decided to offer as incentive to the employees and investors and Janata Personal Accident Policy of the New India Assurance Co. Ltd.

In the year 1998 two memos of understanding (M.O.U) were executed between the Golden Trust and the New India Assurance Company on 29/07/1998 for mediclaim and the other dated 30/12/1998 for personal accident claim.

But ultimately those MOUs were cancelled by the Insurance Company. Against the cancellation of the MOUs a writ petition was filed before the High Court and the Hon’ble High Court passed an interim order not to collect any money from the investor.

It has been further stated some of the service policies moved before the Hon’ble High Court in a writ petition and restraining Golden trust from collecting any premium from category friend from the date of the order i.e. dated 06/07/1999.

The further definite defence case is that the GTFS has / had no legal authority to collect any premium from the public as such the Insurance Company has no liability to make any payment for the instant case.

In order to prove the case the complainant Jharna Das was herself examined as PW1 and she was cross examined. She filed documents by way of firisti. No other witness was examined on behalf of the complainant. On the other hand no witness was examined on behalf of the O.P.

Now the point for determination as to whether the complainant is entitled to get any relief from this forum or not?

          D E C I S I O N  W I T H  R E A S O N S:

At the time of argument the Ld lawyer of the complainant argued that the husband of the complainant purchased a policy from the GTFS authority and the policy was valid till 2017 and during the continuance of the said policy the husband of the complainant died by a motor vehicle accident. Accordingly, as per policy the complainant being the legal heir and wife of the deceased (Karmic Das) is entitled to get the accidental benefit.

On the other hand the Ld. Lawyer of the O.P submits that the O.P has filed documents by which it can be proved that the GTFS authority had no legal authority to collect any premium from the person as because the Hon’ble High Court, Calcutta passed an order in writ petition WP No. 1144/1199 passed by Hon’ble Justice P.C. Ghosh on 06.07.1999 to the affect that GTFS were restrained from collecting any premium from any outsider or from any one from friend category but was permitted to collect premium from his field workers, investors and their family members. So, actually GTFS has /had no legal authority to collect the premium from any outsider friend category. In the present case it is found that GTFS collected money from Karmik Das who was an outsider or not. No document has been produced by the complainant to prove that Karmik Das was a family member of the investors or the field workers. According, to the directions of the Hon’ble High Court in writ petition No. 1144/1999 the GTFS had no legal authority to collect the premium from the outsider. So, definitely the GTFS adopted unfair trade practices with the Insurance Company and collected the illegal premium from the outsider Karmik Das. The policy was valid from 08/05/2002 to 07/05/2017. Definitely the money was collected from deceased Karmik Das after the passing of the order by the Hon’ble High Court, Calcutta on 06/07/1999. So, it is a gross violation of the order of the Hon’ble High Court. Rather the complainant nor the O.P has filed any document to show that any interim order passed by the Ld. Hon’ble High Court has been quashed and the writ petition has been finally disposed of. So, before this Forum that is only document to show that the order passed by the Hon’ble High Court on 06/10/1999 is still in force. So, in view of the above consideration this Forum has nothing to do but to dismiss the case.

C.F. paid is correct,

Hence, it is,

                                O R D E R E D:

 That the complainant case being No. CC-55/17 be and the same is dismissed but without any cost.

Let a copy of this order be given to the parties free of cost.