1. The brief fact of the case of complainant is that the deceased husband of the complainant, during his life time, had taken one postal life insurance from O.P. No. 1 & 2 bearing policy no. 0000001297208, DOC 11.08.2017 for Rs. 10,00,000/- with monthly premium of Rs. 4,150/-.  It is submitted after death of her husband on 19.01.2020, complainant claimed the death benefits against the alleged insurance policy with the O.P. No. 1 & 2 and submitted all the relevant documents.It is alleged that on many occasions, complainant contact with the O.P. No. 1 & 2 regarding death claim, the O.Ps replied that since the O.P. No.3 is mentioned as nominee in the said policy, hence claim cannot be settled in favour of complainant.It is also alleged that while the complainant produced the agreement dated 12.04.2021 on the basis of which, the complainant is entitled for the death benefits of above insurance policy, but the O.P. 1 & 2 did not take any action.Thus suffering from mental agony and sustaining financial loss, she filed this case with a prayer to direct the O.P. 1 & 2 to release the death claim in her favour and also to pay Rs. 2,00,000/- and Rs. 20,000/- towards compensation and costs of litigation.

2. The O.P. 1 & 2 being the same organization were served the notices vide R. L. No. RO054166768IN & RO054166873IN respectively both dated 03.08.2021, but did not choose to appear in this case, nor filed their counter version nor also participated in the hearing, as such we lost every opportunities to hear from them and the allegations made against the O.P. 1 & 2 remained unchallenged and unrebuttal from their side.

3. The O.P. No. 3 though appeared through her Ld. Counsel, but did not to choose file her counter version nor also participated in the hearing, as such we lost every opportunities to hear from her and the allegations made against the O.P. 3 remained unchallenged and unrebuttal from her side.

4. Heard from the complainant at length.  Perused the case record and material documents available therein.

5. Complainant filed certain documents likes
   1. Copy of agreement dated 12.04.2021 made between complainant and O.P. No.3
   2.  Copy of resident certificate.
   3.  Copy of insurance policy issued by O.P. No. 1 & 2
   4.  Copy of death certificate
   5. Copy of 2 nos of affidavits issued in favour of Manager, CPC (PLI/RPLI)
   6. Copy of votor information dated 27.01.2020 issued by Asst. Collector, Malkangiri

6. It is an evidentiary fact that the complainant is the legally married wife of the deceased Manindra Das, who obtained the alleged insurance policy from O.P. No. 1 & 2 bearing policy no. 0000001297208, DOC 11.08.2017 for Rs. 10,00,000/- with monthly premium of Rs. 4,150/-.  It is also an evidentiary fact that the said Manindra Das was died on 19.01.2020 leaving behind his wife (complainant) and mother (O.P. No.3).  The allegations of complainant is that as per agreement dated 12.04.2021, executed between complainant and O.P. No.3 that she is entitled for the insurance benefits of her deceased husband, but the O.P. No. 1 & 2 have not released the said benefits in her favour. Further complainant, during hearing, submitted that earlier both complainant and O.P. No.3 had filed case and counter case before this Commission vide C.C. Nos. 11/2021 & 38/2021 and those cases were compromised on the basis of the agreement dated 12.04.2021, hence complainant prayed for entitlement of right over the benefits of alleged postal life insurance policy bearing no. 0000001297208.

7. The earlier cases i.e. C.C. No. 11 of 2021 & 38 of 2021 were called for to ascertained the fact of the submissions of complainant and found to be true.  Further ascertained from the document i.e. agreement copy dated 12.04.2021 that in the said agreement, complainant is the First Party and the O.P. No. 3 is the Second Party, and both the complainant and O.P. No. 3 have mutually settled their disputes regarding the right over the benefits of alleged postal insurance policy as per clause no. (i) that the second party Sabita Das voluntarily agreed to transfer / change her name in the above postal policy in the name of the first party Sasmita Majumdar @ Das as nominee of the deceased Manindra Das, (ii) that, it agreed by both parties that the first party is empowered to withdrawal the death insured amount, (iii) that, the second party shall not raise any objection at any time during the course of inquiry by the Department at the time of realization, (iv) x x x x x xx, (v)x x x x x x x, (vi)x x x x x x and (vii) x x x x x x x x.And as per our view, the said agreement is a vital report to the present disputes between the parties.

8. Further we have gone through the Section 8 of Hindu Succession Act, 1956, wherein it is emphasizes that : 8. General rules o succession in the case of males – The property of a male Hindu dying intestate shall devolve according to the provisions of this chapter –

1. firstly, upon the heirs, being the relatives specified  in class I of the Schedule;  
2. x x x x x
3. x x x x x
4. x x x x x

Schedule  - Class I – Son, daughter, widow, mother, son of pre-deceased son, daughter of predeceased son, son of a pre-deceased daughter, daughter of a pre-deceased daughter, widow of a pre-deceased son, son of a pre-deceased son of a pre-deceased son, daughter of pre-deceased son of a pre-deceased son, widow of a pre-deceased son of a pre-deceased son, [son of a pre-deceased daughter of a pre-deceased daughter, daughter of a pre-deceased daughter of a pre-deceased daughter, daughter of a pre-deceased son of a pre-deceased daughter, daughter of a pre-deceased daughter of pre-deceased son]   

Hence, as per the above Act, both complainant and O.P. No.3 are having share on their part over the death benefits against the alleged insurance policy.However, since there is a mutual agreement dated 12.04.2021, the O.P. No. 3 has voluntarily left her share in favour of the complainant without any force or coercive measure or compulsion or any kind of fraudulent, as such the said mutual agreement is valid and binding on both the parties as per Section 23 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872.It is also observed that on the basis of such mutual agreement dated 12.04.2021, the earlier two numbers of cases i.e. C.C. C.C. No. 11 of 2021 & 38 of 2021 were settled amicably.Therefore, it can be safely held that the complainant has actual right over the death benefits out of the alleged insurance policy, being obtained by her late husband and also entitled for the same.

9. Further the allegation that inspite of her best approaches, after due produce of the above documents to the O.P. No. 1 & 2, the insurance claim was not settled, which causes mental agony and physical harassment.  In this connection, it is observed that since the present dispute is not an easy for the O.P. No. 1 & 2 to decide the actual right of beneficiary, we do not think the O.P. No.1 & 2 have actual deficiency in service on their part. 

10. Considering the above discussions, the complainant is only entitled for the death benefit over the alleged insurance policy of her late husband from the O.P. 1 & 2.  Hence this order.

ORDER

          The complaint petition is allowed in part.  The O.P. No. 1 & 2 are herewith directed to refund the death of benefit of Rs. 10,00,000/- to the complainant within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order, failing which, above amount shall carry interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of this order till payment.  No order as to cost.  Since O.P.No.3 is made as formal party, no order against her.

          Pronounced in the open Commission on this the 9^th day of December, 2021.        

          Issue free copy to the parties concerned.