C.F. CASE No. : CC/10/116
COMPLAINANT : Smt. Santi Ghosh, @ Sunati Ghosh
W/o Madhai Ghosh
Mother of Late Sukdeb Ghosh
Vill. Tungi, P.O. Majdia,
P.S. Krishnaganj, Dist. Nadia
OPPOSITE PARTIES/OPs : 1) Senior Divisional Manager,
National Insurance Co. Ltd.
Division No. 3, 1 No. Shakespeare Sarani,
Kolkata - 700071
2) The Branch Manager,
National Insurance Co. Ltd.
Krishnagar Branch, L.M. Ghosh Road,
P.O. Krishnagar, P.S. Kotwali,
Dist. Nadia
- Manager,
Golden Trust Financial Services,
16, R.N. Mukherjee Road,
Kolkata - 700001
PRESENT : SHRI KANAILAL CHAKRABORTY PRESIDENT
: SMT SHIBANI BHATTACHARYA MEMBER
DATE OF DELIVERY
OF JUDGMENT : 8th April, 2011
: J U D G M E N T :
In brief, the case of the complainant is that her son one Sukdeb Ghosh purchased one Janata Personal Accident Insurance Policy, No. 100300/47/01/9600022/03/96/30218 on 23.09.03 for a period upto 22.09.2018 and the sum assured was Rs. 50,000/-. The said Sukdeb Ghosh expired in an accident on 10.04.05. Regarding that accident Krishnaganj P.S. case No. 16/2005 was started on 10.04.05 as UD case. Thereafter this complainant being the mother and the nominee of that policy submitted one claim application before the OP No. 3 on 30.09.05 along with all necessary documents. Accordingly, OP No. 3 forwarded the said claim application along with all the documents before the OP No. 1 on 24.12.05. Since then, this complainant met the office of the OP No. 1 time and again requesting to disburse the insured amount to her, but to no effect. So on 28.06.10 she sent a lawyer’s notice to the OP No. 1 and the OP No. 3 with a request to disburse the claim amount. In spite of receipt of that notice, no step was taken by the OP No. 1 to disburse the amount to her. So having no other alternative, this case is filed praying for the reliefs as stated in the petition of complaint.
OP No. 1 has filed written version in this case, inter alia, stating that the case is not maintainable in its present form and nature. He has denied all the allegations made by the complainant in her petition of complaint. But at Para – 8 of the written version, it is stated by him that he already settled the claim of the complainant vide his letter dtd. 01.10.10 and sent disbursement voucher in duplicate for Rs. 50,000/- towards full and final settlement of the claim with a request to submit indemnity-cum-affidavit in the form of declaration by the nominee as per format and Bank details duly attested by Manager of Bank as per format. But the petitioner did not comply the direction given by the OP No. 1 or submitted the required documents though this OP No. 1 is always ready to pay Rs. 50,000/- to the complainant. Hence, the complainant has no cause of action to file this case and the same is liable to be dismissed against him.
OP No. 2 has filed a separate written version in this case, inter alia, stating that the deceased, one Sukdeb Ghosh did not purchase any Janata Personal Accidental Insurance Policy as alleged from this OP, rather it was purchased from the OP No. 1. Besides this as per MOU between the OP No. 1 and the OP No. 3 in which it is stated that all disputes between the parties, the beneficiary thereunder shall be filed within the territorial jurisdiction of Courts at Kolkata. So this OP No. 2 is an unnecessary party in this case. As the complainant has no cause of action to make him a party in this case and no relief is also claimed against him, so the case is liable to be dismissed against him.
The OP No. 3, Golden Trust Financial Services has filed a separate written version in this case, inter alia, stating that Sukdeb Ghosh purchased one Janata Personal Accidental Insurance Policy from the OP No. 1 through him and the insured amount was Rs. 50,000/-. The present complainant was the nominee of that insurance policy. Sukdeb Ghosh expired in an accident and thereafter the complainant submitted a claim form along with the requisite documents which he duly forwarded to the OP No. 1 on 15.10.07, but till to-date the OP No. 1 has not settled the claim of the complainant. As per MOU between the OP No. 1 and OP No. 3 this OP has no liability to settle the claim of the complainant. So he is not a necessary party in this case and the same is liable to be dismissed against him.
POINTS FOR DECISION
Point No.1: Has the complainant any cause of action to file this case?
Point No.2: Is the complainant entitled to get the reliefs as prayed for?
DECISION WITH REASONS
Both the points are taken up together for discussion as they are interrelated and for the sake of convenience.
On a careful perusal of the petition of the complaint along with the written versions filed by the OPs and the annexed documents filed by the parties and after hearing the arguments advanced by the ld. lawyers for all the parties it is available on record that one Sukdeb Ghosh purchased one Janata Personal Accidental Insurance Policy from the OP No. 1 on 23.02.03 and the insured amount was Rs. 50,000/-. The present complainant being the mother of that Sukdeb Ghosh is the nominee of that policy also. It is also available that said Sukdeb Ghosh expired in an accident on 10.04.05 and thereafter this complainant submitted a claim application along with the requisite documents before the OP No. 3 who duly forwarded the same to the OP No. 1 for settlement, but till filing of this case it was neither repudiated, nor settled by the OP No. 1 even after sending a lawyer’s notice by this complainant on 28.06.10. In the written version the OP No. 1 has categorically stated that he is always ready to settle the claim of the complainant and accordingly, he sent disbursement voucher to the complainant with a request to submit indemnity-cum-affidavit and bank details on 01.10.10. But from the original letter it is available that though the letter’s date is mentioned as 01.10.10 but it was sent by the OP No. 1 on 27.01.11 as per postal seal on the envelope and it was delivered to the complainant on 31.01.11. The present case was filed on 31.12.10. So we find that after filing of this case the OP No. 1 sent the payment voucher to the complainant. But the fact is that since 2005, till the date of filing of this case, he did not take any step either to settle the claim or to repudiate it. So we find that it is a gross deficiency in service on the part of the OP No. 1. OP No. 2 has alleged that he is an unnecessary party in this case as no relief is prayed against him. Section 11B of the CP Act, provides that the case may be filed within the local limits of this District Forum of whose jurisdiction any of the opposite parties, where there are more than one at the time of the institution of the complaint actually and voluntarily resides or carries on business or has a Branch Office, or personally works for gain, as the case may be, acquiesce in such institution. So in view of the provision of the section, we find that the OP No. 2 is the Branch office of OP No. 1 and naturally the case is filed before this Forum by the complainant. So the complainant No. 2 is a necessary party in this case.
In view of above discussions and considering the facts of this case, our considered view is that the complainant has become able to prove her case. So she is entitled to get the relief as prayed for. In result the case succeeds.
Hence,
Ordered,
That the case, CC/10/116 be and the same is decreed on contest against the OPs. The complainant is entitled to get Rs. 50,000/- plus Rs. 5,000/- as compensation for the harassment caused to her plus Rs. 2,000/- as litigation cost, i.e., in total Rs. 57,000/-. The OP No. 1 & 2 are jointly or severally directed to make payment of the decretal amount to the complainant within a period of one month since this date of passing this judgment, in default, the decretal amount will carry interest @10% per annum since this date till the date of realization of the full amount.
Let a copy of this judgment be delivered to the parties free of cost.
