Madhya Pradesh

StateCommission

FA/12/2372

BSNL - Complainant(s)

Versus

SMT. SANGEETA - Opp.Party(s)

SH. RAJEEV JAIN

22 Jun 2022

ORDER

M. P. STATE  CONSUMER  DISPUTES  REDRESSAL  COMMISSION,

PLOT NO.76, ARERA HILLS, BHOPAL

 

                                      FIRST APPEAL NO. 2372 OF 2012

(Arising out of order dated 01.10.2012 passed in C. C. No.80/2011 by District Commission, Chhindwara)

 

BHARAT SANCHAR NIGAM LIMITED,

THROUGH DISTRICT MANAGER,

PARASIA ROAD, CHHINDWARA

TEHSIL & DISTRICT-CHHINDWARA (M.P.)                                                               … APPELLANT.

 

Versus

 

1. SMT. SANGEETA

    W/O LATE SUNIL KUMAR JAIN

2. SANIL S/O LATE SUNIL KUMAR JAIN,

3. KU. BARKHA D/O LATE SUNIL KUMAR JAIN,

4. KU. PRERNA D/O LATE SUNIL KUMAR JAIN,

    2 TO 4 MINOR THROUGH NATURAL GUARDIAN

    SMT. SANGEETA JAIN,

 

ALL R/O PAHADE COLONY, GULABARA,

TEHSIL & DISTRICT-CHHINDWARA (M.P.)  

 

5. SENIOR MANAGER, CHOLAMANDLAM GENERAL

    INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED.

    PLOT NO.6, NEAR RAILWAY METRO PILLAR NO.81

    POOSA ROAD, NEW DELHI-110 005                                                            … RESPONDENTS.                                

                                 

BEFORE :

            HON’BLE DR (MRS) MONIKA MALIK     :       PRESIDING MEMBER

            HON’BLE SHRI S. S. BANSAL                :       MEMBER         

                     

COUNSEL FOR PARTIES :

                Shri Rajeev Jain, learned counsel for the appellant. 

           None for the respondent no.1 to 4.

           Shri Ravindra Tiwari, learned counsel for the respondent no.5.

                                                      O R D E R

                                       (Passed on 22.06.2022)

                   The following order of the Commission was delivered by Dr.(Mrs) Monika Malik, Member:

 

                  This appeal by the opposite party no.1/appellant is directed against the order dated 01.10.2012 passed by the District Consumer

 

-2-

Disputes Redressal Commission, Chhindwara (for short the ‘District Commission’) in C. C. No. 80/2011 whereby the District Commission has

partly allowed the complaint filed by the complainant.

2.                Briefly put, facts of the case are that the complainant’s husband Late Shri Sunil Kumar Jain (hereinafter referred to as ‘deceased’) had obtained landline and mobile numbers from the opposite party no.1. The deceased was also insured under the scheme of the opposite party no.1. Under the aforesaid scheme, a sum of Rs.50,000/- as sum insured was payable in case of death of the connection holder. On 07.12.2009, the complainant’s husband died in a road accident, regarding which the opposite party no.1 was duly intimated. It is alleged that despite completing all the formalities, the opposite party no.1 did not pay the sum insured. Hence the complainant filed a complaint before the District Commission alleging deficiency in service on part of the opposite parties.

3.                The opposite party no.1 /appellant resisted the complaint stating that though the connection holder was insured under a scheme the liability to pay the insurance claim lies with the opposite party no.2-insurance company.

4.                The opposite party no.2-insurance company resisted the complaint on the ground that the complainant has not filed any claim with them and therefore, they are not liable in the instant matter.

-3-

5.                The District Commission partly allowed the complaint and directed the opposite party no.2-insurance company to pay Rs.50,000/- to the complainant. Interest @ 8% from 07.12.2009 i.e the date of death of deceased, till payment is directed to be paid by the opposite party no.1. Compensation of Rs.5,000/- with costs of Rs.1,000/- is also awarded to the complainant, to be paid by the opposite party no.1.  Hence this appeal.

6.                Heard. Perused the record.

7.                Learned counsel for the opposite party no.1/appellant argued that the delay in payment of claim to the complainant was due to opposite party no.2/respondent no.5-insurance company.  The amount stayed with the respondent no.5 and therefore, the District Commission ought to have directed the respondent no.5-insurance company to pay interest and compensation. He argued that the impugned order is not maintainable against the appellant.  He further argued that the District Commission has erred in awarding interest and compensation together which is not sustainable.  To support his view, he placed reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble National Commission in Laxmi Vilas Bank Ltd. & Anr. Vs P. R. Krishnan & Anr. I (1995) CPJ 43 (NC).

8.                Learned counsel for the opposite party no.2/respondent no.5-insurance company argued that as soon as they were intimated regarding death of the deceased, they initiated payment of sum insured which has

-4-

been given to the complainants. There has been no negligence or deficiency in service on part of the respondent no.5 in the instant matter.  They were liable to pay only sum insured, which has already been paid by them to the complainants and are therefore, not liable to pay any further amount.

9.                On due consideration of evidence available in the record of the District Commission as also the impugned order, we find that the District Commission has rightly arrived at a conclusion that earlier the complainant was directed by the opposite party no.1 to take steps for obtaining the insurance amount from Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited. Letter dated 31.03.2010 available in the record of the District Commission proves this fact.  The complainants therefore had initially arrayed Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited as party to the matter.  Subsequently, the appellant vide letter dated 07.06.2011 informed the complainant Smt. Sangeeta Jain, directing her to approach Cholamandlam General Insurance Company Limited regarding obtaining the claim amount. 

10.              The fact that the complainant’s late husband was insured with which insurance company, was in the knowledge of the appellant only.  Annexure-2 in the record of the District Commission demonstrates the fact that BSNL accepted the proposal of Cholamandlam General Insurance Company Limited regarding personal accident insurance coverage of

 

-5-

BSNL’s customers of working landline including WLL phones and postpaid mobile services under the policy “Personal accidental-Death and Permanent Total Disability Insurance coverage for the subscribers of BSNL”. The period of insurance was w.e.f. 14^th January 2009 to 13^th January 2010.  Despite there being a contract between the opposite party no.1 and 2, the opposite party no.1 directed the complainant to approach the Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited.  The District Commission has therefore rightly held the opposite party no.1/appellant deficient in service and awarded compensation and cost to the complainant on the aforesaid account.

11.              As regards the contention of the opposite party no.1/appellant that the complainant either deserves interest on the amount or lump sum compensation, we are of the view that in the judgment referred by the appellant Laxmi Vilas Bank (supra), the interest on maturity of FDRs was awarded @ 18% p.a. with lump sum compensation of Rs.25,000/-.  The compensation part is directed to be set-aside by the National Commission considering the actual loss sustained by the complainants.  However, cost of Rs.5,000/- is awarded to the complainants.  In the instant matter, interest @ 8% p.a. on the sum insured with compensation of Rs.5,000/- and cost valuing Rs.1,000/- appears to be adequate considering the facts and

 

-6-

circumstances of the matter. Therefore, the contention of the appellant in this regard is also unwarranted.   

12.              In view of the aforesaid, we do not find any illegality or irregularity in the impugned order which is therefore affirmed. This appeal being devoid of any merit is dismissed, with no order as to costs. 

 

            (Dr. Monika Malik)             (S. S. Bansal)         

           Presiding Member                  Member