West Bengal

Paschim Midnapore

CC/4/2013

Sri Ashok Mallick - Complainant(s)

Versus

Sahara India Commercial Corporation Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

19 Dec 2014

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

PASCHIM MEDINIPUR.

 

 Complaint case No.04/2013                                                         Date of disposal: 19/12/2014                               

 BEFORE : THE HON’BLE PRESIDENT :  Mr. Sujit Kumar Das.

                                                      MEMBER :  Mrs. Debi Sengupta.

                                                      MEMBER :  Mr. Kapot Chattopadhyay.

  

    For the Complainant/Petitioner/Plaintiff : Mr. A. Mandal,  Advocate.

    For the Defendant/O.P.S.                        : Mr. M. K. Chowdhury, Advocate.                                   

          

    Sri Ashok Mallick, S/o Late Ashwini Kumar Mallick, of Colonelgola, Medinipur, P.O.  

    Medinipur, P.S. Kotwali, Dist- Paschim Medinipur…………..Complainant

                                                           Vs.

1. Sahara India Commercial Corporation Ltd. (Sahara India Parivar), Branch Office at Kidsland Building, Sahid Khudiram Basu Sarani, near Ed. College, Medinipur, P.O. Medinipur, P.S. Kotwali, Dist- Paschim Medinipur,
2. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., Branch Office No.4, 134/135, 111rd Floor, Sahu Plaza, Alam Bagh Lucknow, Pin-226018..……………Ops.

         The case of the complainant Sri Ashok Mallick, in short, is that his wife Susmita Mallick died on 8/03/2009 in a road traffic accident at Panskura while travelling by Tata Indica, Regn. No.WB16T/9860 along the NH6 road.  Police case was held, Panskura P.S. Case No.57/09 dated 8/03/2009 and charge sheet was done accordingly.  The deceased was subscriber of two housing scheme under the Op on certain terms and conditions as laid down therein.  After death of Susmita Mallick on 8/03/2009, the claim form accidental benefit was made before the Op on 22/05/2009 and  the complainant received 15,452/- each on account of deposit and interest minus TDS.  But payment for accidental death benefit has not been received in spite of repeated request.  Lastly, on 12/12/2012 the complainant approached to the Op, but no result.  Stating the case the claimant has come before us with the prayer for passing necessary direction to the Op for payment of 4,00000/- on account of accidental death benefit with compensation of 50, 000/-.  In this connection, Pass Book certificate, Payment Receipt on 10, 000/- under Sahara Swarn Yojna and a payment schedule for insurance compensation amount against item No.18 Accidental Death Benefit

Contd…………..P/2

 

                                                                    - ( 2 ) -

alongwith withdrawal slip and an application dated 27/07/2011 with affidavit and copies of police reports are submitted.

         The Op No.1 contested the case by filling written objection challenging that the case is not maintainable for want of cause of action and the same is barred by limitation.  Apart from that, the case of death due to road traffic accident and the status of the complainant are denied.  There is no term of conditions to be followed by the nominee of the deceased           .  Moreover, there was no due intimation for filing this case.  Thus, the Op claim that the Insurance Com. has no liability for payment of compensation as prayed for on deficiency of service as alleged.  So, the case should be dismissed.

         Upon the case of both parties the following issues are framed.

Issues:

1. Whether the case is maintainable in its present from?
2. Whether the complainant has any cause of action for presentation of this petition of complaint?
3. Whether the case is barred by jurisdiction?
4. Whether the complainant is entitled for getting relief as prayed for.?

 

Decision with reasons

Issue Nos.1 to 4:

              All the issues are taken up together for discussion as those are interlinked each other for the purpose of arriving at a correct decision in the dispute.

              Ld. Advocate for the complainant made his argument that it is a clear case of making payment of compensation on account of accidental death benefit as per schedule under the terms and conditions of the policy as per schedule mentioned against accidental death benefit.  Ld. Advocate at the time of argument is found to have pointed out that insurance compensation amount is 2,00000/-  if the accidental death occurs after one year and upto two years.  The cause of death of the policy holder is established by virtue of police reports without any objection.  The report of death was duly notified to the OP.  Thus, the Op has no reasonable ground for refusal of payment of accidental benefit to the lawful representative of the deceased policy holder.  The OP on being informed has not paid the claim of the complainant.  So, the Forum should pass necessary order in favour of the complainant.

        Ld. Advocate for the Op submitted that there is no case of deficiency in service as the claim was not duly submitted before them. No document is forthcoming showing the allegation against the OP.  Thus, the case should be dismissed.

        We have carefully considered the case.  The documentary evidence so far available before

Contd………..P/3

 

                                                          - ( 3 ) -

us, it can be settled that the insurance certificate was held under the Op.  But it is surprising to note that the document containing the schedule of terms of accidental death benefit does not bear other papers of pages to complete the instrument.  So for want of complete documentary evidence, it is difficult for us to determine whether this benefit schedule relates to the policy in favour of the complainant.  If that be so, the claim made by the complainant cannot be said to have been established to hold that the Op is guided with the terms of payment schedule. So, in the context of present document of payment schedule, we cannot accept the option amount of compensation as indicated therein for want of relevancy under the provisions of Indian Evidence Act. 

        Under the facts and circumstances, the case of deficiency in service is not proved by virtue of legal evidence on the part of the complainant and as such the case should fail.

        Thus, all the issues are disposed of accordingly.   

               Hence,

                           It is Ordered,    

                                                    that the case be and the same is dismissed  on contest  without cost.

Dictated & Corrected by me

              

         President                          Member              Member                             President

                                                                                                                  District Forum

                                                                                                              Paschim Medinipur.