C.F. CASE No. : CC/11/79
COMPLAINANTS : 1) Mrinalini Mondal
W/o Lt. Sasti Charan Mondal,
M/0 Late Amal Krishna Mondal
@ Amal Mondal
2) Amartya Mondal
S/o Late Amal Krishna Mondal
@ Amal Mondal
All of Vill & P.O. Chowgachha,
P.S. Krishnaganj, Dist. Nadia
OPPOSITE PARTIES/OPs: 1) Sr. Divisional Manager,
National Insurance Co. Ltd.
Division – III
8, India Exchange Place,
(Ground Floor)
Kolkata – 700001
2) Branch Manager
National Insurance Co. Ltd.
Krishnagar Branch,
P.O. Krishnagar, P.S. Kotwali,
Dist. Nadia
3) The Manager,
Golden Multiservices Club
of M/S GTFS
Krishnagar Branch
R.N. Tagore Road,
P.O. Krishnagar, P.S. Kotwali,
Dist. Nadia
PRESENT : SHRI KANAILAL CHAKRABORTY PRESIDENT
: SHRI SHYAMLAL SUKUL MEMBER
DATE OF DELIVERY
OF JUDGMENT : 21st February, 2012
: J U D G M E N T :
In brief, it is the case of the complainants that one Amal Krishna Mondal purchased a Janata Personal Accidental Insurance Policy from the OP, National Insurance Co. Ltd. through the OP No. 3, GTFS on 23.10.02 and the insured amount was Rs. 4,00,000/-. The policy is valid up to 22.10.17. It is their further case that said Amal Krishna Mondal died on 15.04.10 when he was travelling from Haridwar to Chandigarh in a road accident along with his wife, Anjana Mondal and daughter, Arupa Mondal. So the present complainants being the mother and only son of the said Amal Krishna Mondal have filed this case as his legal heirs. It is their further case that after the death of Amal Krishna Mondal, his wife and daughter in the accident they filed a claim form with all requisite documents to the OP No.3, GTFS. On 11.11.10, the OP No. 3 intimated that the claim form along with all the requisite documents were duly forwarded to the OP No. 2 with a request to settle the claim. By a letter dtd. 25.02.11, Sr. Divisional Manager, OP No. 2, asked to produce some documents to settle the claim. Accordingly, they sent all the required documents to him, but the claim was not settled. Thereafter, on 26.05.11 the complainant No. 2 sent an application to the OP No. 1 asking whether any document was required relating to the claim and requested him to settle his claim, but no response was given to him. So having no other alternative this case is filed by the complainants praying for the reliefs as stated in the petition of complaint.
OP No. 1 & 2, National Insurance Co. Ltd. has filed a written version in this case, inter alia, stating that the case is not maintainable in its present form and nature. It is his contention that he has no knowledge regarding the alleged death of the Amal Krishna Mondal on 15.04.10 in an accident. The Insurance Co. further submits that till now he has not received any claim from the legal heirs of Late Amal Krishna Mondal or GTFS, Krishnagar and as such there is no question of any claim for the death of Amal Krishna Mondal does arise. Hence the case is liable to be dismissed against him.
OP No. 3, GTFS has filed a separate written version in this case, inter alia, stating that Amal Krishna Mondal purchased a Janata Personal Accident Insurance Policy from the National Insurance Co. Ltd. through him and that policy is valid up to 2017. It is his submission also that said Amal Krishna Mondal along with his wife and daughter died in a road accident in Chandigarh and thereafter, the present complainants sent a claim application to the OP No. 2 through him along with all the relevant documents. In spite of that, the claim application was not disposed of by the OP No. 1. This OP has no liability to pay the claim amount of the complainants. He only forwarded the claim application and other relevant documents to the OP No. 1 who is to settle the claim. So he has prayed to expunge his name from the cause title of the case as no relief can be granted against him.
POINTS FOR DECISION
Point No.1: Have the complainants any cause of action to file this case?
Point No.2: Are the complainants entitled any benefit as claimed 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 complaint and the written versions filed by the OPs along with the annexed documents filed by the parties and also after hearing the arguments advanced by the ld. lawyers for the parties it is available on record that one Amal Krishna Mondal purchased one Janata Personal Accidental Insurance Policy from the OP No. 1 on 23.10.02 which is valid up to 22.10.17. The insured amount was Rs. 4,00,000/- and one Anjana Mondal, wife of Amal Krishna Mondal is the nominee. It is also available from the documents that one Anjana Mondal, wife of the Amal Krishna Mondal along with his daughter expired in a road accident at the time of travelling from Haridwar on 15.04.10. ‘Annexure – 14 and 15’ speak about the accidental death of the policy holder, his wife and daughter at Shahzadpur, Haridwar. Besides this, the complainants have filed the death certificate, post-mortem report, F.I.R. and final investigation report of police of that P.S. case. Thereafter, they submitted the claim application before the OP No. 1, along with some documents. From a letter dtd. 06.12.10 issued by the OP No. 1, it is available that he asked the complainant No. 2 to submit some documents and accordingly, those documents were submitted by the complainant No. 2. In spite of that, the OP No. 1 neither settled the claim nor repudiated the same. Finally on 25.02.11 the complainant No. 2 again sent a letter to the OP No. 1 with a request to settle his claim. Thereafter, the OP No. 3 sent a letter on 12.05.11 to the OP No. 1 with a request to settle the claim of the complainants.
Therefore, on a careful perusal of the above cited documents and after hearing the arguments advanced by the ld. lawyers on all sides, it is clear to us that the complainants duly submitted a claim application along with the relevant documents to the OP No. 1 to settle their claim which is not settled till today. So it is not at all correct that the OP No. 1 did not receive the claim application from the complainants. Besides this on a careful perusal of all these documents, we find that the case is not barred by limitation also as the complainant No. 2 sent his last letter to the OP No. 1 to settle his claim on 02.05.11. Even by a letter dtd. 25.02.11 the OP No. 1 asked the complainants to send some documents vide ‘Annexure – 19’ which were duly sent to the OP No. 1 by the complainant No. 2 on 25.03.11. Ld. lawyer for the OP Insurance Co. has not agitated this point at the time of his argument.
In view of the above discussions, it is available that the policy holder expired in an accident along with his daughter and wife. The present complainants being the heirs of the deceased filed this case within the period of limitation. It is also established that they submitted the claim application along with the other documents before the OP No. 1 to settle their claim which is not still disposed of by the OP No. 1. So it is a gross deficiency in service on the part of the OP No. 1 & 2.
In view of the above discussions our considered view is that the complainants have become able to prove their case. So they are entitled to get the reliefs as prayed for. In result the case succeeds.
Hence,
Ordered,
That the case, CC/11/79 be and the same is decreed on contest against the OPs. The complainants are entitled to get Rs. 4,00,000/- which is insured money along with Rs. 10,000/- for harassment caused to them plus Rs. 2,000/- as litigation cost, i.e., in total Rs. 4,12,000/-. The OP No. 1 & 2 are jointly and severally liable to make payment of the decretal amount by issuing two separate cheques to the complainant No. 1 & 2 respectively amounting to Rs. 2,06,000/- each 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.
We make no order against the OP No. 3.
Let a copy of this judgment be delivered to the parties free of cost.
