Haryana

Karnal

136/2012

Ramjyoti Wd/o Sh. Raju Sada - Complainant(s)

Versus

Reliance Gernal Insurance Company Limited., Golden Multi Services Club Ltd., Ravinder S/o Shri Laxmi - Opp.Party(s)

Sh. S.S. Moonak

27 Oct 2014

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL  FORUM KARNAL.

 

                                                          Complaint No.136 of 2012

                                                          Date of instt.2.03.2012

                                                          Date of decision:1.04.2015

 

Smt. Ramjyoti wd/o Sh.Raju Sada resident of village Taraiya, P.O.Sakha via Bajora, Begusarai Bihar and temporary address at present r/o Jhuggi Jhompari near Sector 7, Urban Estate, Karnal.

 

                                                                  ……..Complainant.

                                  Vs.

1.Reliance General Insurance, Himalaya House, 5^th Floor, 38-B, Jawaharlal Nehru Road, Kolkata 700071 (West Bengal) through its Manager.

2.M/s Golden Multi Services Club Ltd. S.B.Mansion, R.N.Mukherjee Road, Kolkotta 700001(West Bengal) through its Manager.

3.Ravinder son of Shri Laxmi Narain and Mr.Ashok r/o 108, Durga Colony, Karnal (Agents)..

 

                                                                        …..Opposite Parties.

.

 

                                      Complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer

                                      Protection Act.

 

Before        Sh.Subhash Goyal……..President.

                   Smt.Shashi Sharma……Member.

 

Argued by :-Sh. Vidya Sagar Advocate for the complainant.

                    Sh.Pankaj Malhotra Advocate for the   OP No..1.

                    Sh.S.C.Bhardwaj Advocate for the OP No.2 and 3.

 

ORDER

                       

                        The complainant has filed the present complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act  against the Ops on the allegations that  her husband  deceased Raju Sada purchased insurance  policy namely Reliance Group Medi claim and Group Personal Accident policy vide Certificate of insurance bearing No. 014009493/7030916714Y1  valid from  15.2.2011 to 14.2.2012  for a sum of Rs.three lakhs and she was nominee and her husband Raju Sada was murdered on 29.8.2011 at Karnal and FIR No.646 dated 30.8.2011 u/s 302 IPC was registered at Police Station, Civil Lines, Karnal and the complainant reported the matter to the Ops and submitted documents to process the claim but the claim was repudiated on the ground that there was delay of 42 days of  occurrence and as such repudiation of the claim was deficiency in services on the part  of the Ops.   The complainant has also tendered her affidavit in support of the averments made in the complaint alongwith some other documents.

 

2.                On notice the Ops appeared. The OP No.1 has filed its  separate written statement raising the preliminary objections that  the complainant has got no loucs standi to  file the present complaint; that the complainant has no cause of action to file the present complaint; that this Forum has got no  jurisdiction to try the present complaint and that there is no deficiency in services on the part of the  answering OP No.1.

                   On merits it was contended that  the claim has righty been repudiated and the District Consumer Forum, Karnal has got no jurisdiction as the policy of insurance was issued from Panipat and the claim was processed at Chandigarh and the claim has been rightly repudiated on the ground that there was delay in intimation regarding the occurrence and the same was in violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. It was also argued that there was no branch office at Karnal and the complainant was resident of Bihar and as such District Consumer Forum, Karnal has got no jurisdiction to entertain and to try the present complaint. 

 

                   The OP no.2  in its written statement has  contended that as and when the OP no.2 received the documents from the complainant, the same were sent to the OP no.1 and there was no negligence on the part of answering OP no.2 and dismissal of the complaint has been sought.

 

3.                We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the case file very carefully.

 

4.                Therefore, from the facts and circumstances of the case, evidence on the file and the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, it emerges that  the complain ant has filed thepresent complaint against the Ops alleging deficiency in services on the allegations that her husband  deceased Raju Sada purchased insurance  policy namely Reliance Group Medi claim and Group Personal Accident policy  valid from  15.2.2011 to 14.2.2012  for a sum of Rs.three lakhs and she was nominee and her husband Raju Sada was murdered on 29.8.2011 at Karnal and FIR No.646 dated 30.8.2011 u/s 302 IPC was registered at Police Station, Civil Lines, Karnal and the complainant reported the matter to the Ops and submitted documents to process the claim ;but the claim was repudiated on the ground that there was delay of 42 days of  occurrence and as such repudiation of the claim was deficiency in services on the part  of the Ops.   In order to substantiate, the complainant has filed her affidavit Ex.C1, legal notice Ex.C2, postal receipt Ex.C3, insurance policy Ex.C4, repudiation letter Ex.C5,  letter dated 5..01.2012 Ex.C6, death certificate Ex.C7, photo copy of the ration card Ex.C8, letter dated 17.10.2011 Ex.C9,  Insurance premium receipt Ex.C10, FIR Ex.C11,  statement Ex.C12,  Post mortem report  Ex.C13 and letter dated  14.2.2012 Ex.C14.

 

5.                 However, as per the contention of the Ops the claim has righty been repudiated and the District Consumer Forum, Karnal has got no jurisdiction as the policy of insurance was issued from Panipat and the claim was processed at Chandigarh and the claim has been rightly repudiated on the ground that there was delay in intimation regarding the occurrence and the same was in violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. It was also argued that there was no branch office at Karnal and the complainant was resident of Bihar and as such District Consumer Forum, Karnal has got no jurisdiction to entertain and to try the present complaint. 

 

                   The learned counsel for the OP No.1 has strongly argued that murder was not covered under the terms and conditions of the insurance policy as contained in Ex.O3 and thus the complaint was liable to be dismissed on this score alone.

 

                   It was further argued that as per  terms and conditions of the insurance policy the court at Calcutta only has jurisdiction  to entertain and to try the present complaint. To substantiate arguments, he has placed reliance on Caprihans India Limited Vs. M/s R.T.Packging Limited  IA No.163 of 2005  in  CS(OS) 1977 of 2003 F/d 19.12.2005.

 

                   Faced with this argument, the learned counsel for the complainant has argued that murder was very much covered under the definition of accident in view of the law laid down in case  NIC Versus Presiding Officer, Labour Court and others  2000(2) TAC 722 (Pat.), Abida Khatun Vs. Gener4al Manager, Diesel Locomotive Varansi 1972 ACJ 489,  Nishet Versus Reyne 1910 (2) K.B.689 and Anderson Vs.Balfour , 1910(2) L.R. 497, wherein it has been held that:

 

“I am of the definite opinion that the death caused to the deceased by act of the  criminals is nothing but an accident within the meaning of Section  3 of the Workmen’s Compensation Act.”

 

                    Similar view has been taken in National Insurance Co. Ltd. Versus Presiding Officer, Labour court and others 2000 ACJ 343.

 

                    Reliance has also been placed on Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Versus Rachna Devi III (2005) ACC 554 (P & H).

 

6.                Therefore, after going through the legal precedents cited by the learned counsel for the complainant we are inclined to hold that accident includes murder and as such the case of the complainant is covered under the terms and conditions of the insurance policy.

 

                    The argument that the Consumer Forum at Karnal has got no jurisdiction is also not sustainable in the eyes of law because deceased Raju Sada husband of the complainant paid premium at Karnal as shown in insurance premium receipt Ex.C10.  Moreover, insured was murdered at Karnal and FIR Ex.C11 was lodged at Karnal. The Post mortem examination on the dead body of the deceased life assured was also conducted at Karnal vide Ex.C13 and the death certificate Ex.C17 has also been issued at Karnal. Therefore, since the insurance premium has been paid at Karnal and death/accident has taken place at Karnal and FIR was lodged at Karnal and as such the District Consumer Forum, at Karnal has jurisdiction to entertain and to decide the present complaint.( as part of cause of action has arisen at Karnal.)

 

7.                 Now coming to the exclusion clause as mentioned in the insurance policy Ex.C4, that jurisdiction will vest exclusively in the court of Kolkatta in view of the law down in the authority   Caprihans India Limited,s case (Supra), it has to be held that in the instant case  since  murder/accident has taken place at Karnal  as  observed above and as such the exclusion clause conferring jurisdiction at Kolkatta exclusively cannot be  given weightage.  Moreover, the insurance policy has been issued by the OP No.1 conferring of Jurisdiction by OP No.1 at Kolkatta is an unilateral act of OP No.1. There is absolutely no document on the file in order to infer that deceased Raju Sada had ever agreed to confer jurisdiction at Kolkatta and in the absence of any such agreement to confer exclusively jurisdiction at Kolkatta, no weightage can be given to the exclusion clause attached to the policy which has been issued by the OP No.1 and as such we hold that District Consumer Forum at Karnal has jurisdiction to entertain and to try the present complaint. .( as part of cause of action has arisen at Karnal.)

 

                    The argument that there was delay in lodging the claim  which is basis for repudiation of the claim is also of no avail l in the present circumstances of the case because the occurrence has taken place on 29.08.2011 at about 23.30 in the night and the FIR has been registered approximately 15 hours as is evident from  FIR Ex.C11. Therefore, the FIR has been registered promptly and as such the matter was required to be investigated by the investigating agency of the State and if the complainant has reported the matter after delay to the OP  then the same is not fatal to the claim  because the FIR has been registered promptly. Therefore, repudiation of the claim by the OP was deficiency in services and the complainant is entitled to the sum insured.

 

8.                 Therefore, as a sequel to our above discussion, we accept the present complaint and direct the OP No.1 to make the payment of the  sum insured alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from the date of  filing of the present complaint i.e. 2.03.2012 till its actual realization.  The complainant shall also be entitled for a sum of Rs.25000/- for the harassment caused to him and a sum of Rs.2200/- towards legal fee and litigation expenses. The OP no.1 shall make the compliance of this order within a period of thirty days from the date of receipt of the copy of this order. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

 

Announced:

1.04.2015                                                                                                                                            

                                                                                 (Subhash Goyal)

                                                                                     President,

                                                                         District Consumer Disputes

                                                                          Redressal Forum, Karnal.

 

           (Smt.Shashi Sharma)

                    ( Member

 

 

Argued by :-  Sh. Vidya Sagar Advocate for the complainant.

                    Sh.Pankaj Malhotra Advocate for the   OP No..1.

                    Sh.S.C.Bhardwaj Advocate for the OP No.2 and 3.

 

                    Arguments heard. Vide our separate order of the even date, the present complaint has been accepted. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

 

Announced:

1.04.2015                                                                                                                                            

                                                   (Subhash Goyal)

                                                  President,

                                      District Consumer Disputes

                                      Redressal Forum, Karnal.

 

           (Smt.Shashi Sharma)

                    ( Member