ORDER NO. 6 DT. 11.4.11

HON’BLE JUSTICE MR. P.K.SAMANTA, PRESIDENT

Appellant is present through Mr. S.K.Chakraborty, Mr. Ajoy Debnath, Mr. Goutam Deb and Mr. Prasenjit Mitra, Ld. Advocates, are present.  Respondent No. 2 is present through Mr. Avik K.Dutt, Ld. Advocate.  Respondent No. 1 is absent on calls.  Heard both sides in full.  Judgement is delivered as under :-

This Appeal is by the Insurer against the judgement and order dt. 30.4.10 passed by the Nadia District Consumer Forum in C.F. Case No. CC/09/80.  Admittedly the complainant/Respondent purchased a Janata Personal Accident Insurance Policy from the Appellant/National Insurance Co. Ltd. through Golden Trust Financial Services.  The amount of Rs. 50,000/- was covered under the policy which was valid upto 30.3.2018.  It has been proved before the District Forum that the Claimant/Respondent met with a road accident and became permanently disable.  His permanent disability has been certified by the Superintendent, District Hospital, Nadia.  The complainant accordingly approached the GTFS, the OP No. 1, along with all necessary documents for forwarding his insurance claim to the OP No. 2.  The OP No. 1 in its turn forwarded the claim of the claimant/Respondent to the OP No. 2 for settlement of the claim.  The claim having not been settled the above complaint case was filed.  The same has been allowed by directing the OP No. 2/Insurer to pay to the complainant the sum of Rs. 50,000/- as insured, Rs. 5,000/- towards compensation for mental pain and harassment and Rs. 2,000/- as litigation cost with direction to make such payment within a period of one month from the date of the order, in default of which the said decretal amount would carry interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of the order till realization. 

This order has been challenged on three-fold grounds.  (1) Although the accident took place on 11.11.05 but the claim application before the OP No. 2 was forwarded by the aforesaid GTFS on 23.8.07, i.e. after one year and eight months from the date of the accident and as such, the OP No. 2/Insurer was not obliged to settle the claim.   (2) Although the insurance policy was taken from Kolkata office, the above claim was filed before the District Forum at Nadia and as such, the said Forum had no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the claim case,  and  (3) the claim of the complainant/Respondent had not been verified before being presented before the Insurer.

So far as the first point is concerned, no law has been shown to us stipulating that the insured was legally obliged to raise a claim before the Insurer within a  specified period, failure of which will make the claim barred by limitation.  In the case in hand, although the complainant/Respondent met with the accident on 11.11.05, but his permanent disability suffered in the said accident was thereafter determined and certified by the Superintendent, District Hospital, Nadia, long after he met with the said accident.  The complainant approached the GTFS to raise his insurance claim before the OP No. 2/Insurer along with necessary documents.  It has not been shown that the complainant/Respondent in approaching the GTFS for raising such claim on his behalf made any laches and/or unnecessary delay.  However, there being no specific period of limitation for raising such claim, the delay, if there by any, in raising the claim through GTFS before the OP/Insurer, and in the facts and circumstances of the case as above, the point as taken by the Appellant/Insurer cannot be sustained.  The same is accordingly rejected.

So far as the second point is concerned, Sub-section 2(a) of Section 11 of the Consumer Protection Act clearly stipulates that a complaint shall be instituted in a forum within the limits of whose jurisdiction the OP or each of the Ops, where there are more than one, at the time of institution of the complaint has a branch office.  It is not in dispute that the OP/Insurer has a branch office within the district of Nadia.  Therefore, it cannot be said that the District Forum, Nadia, had no jurisdiction to entertain the above complaint case.

So far as the third point is concerned, it is evident from the materials on record that GTFS, the agent of the OP No. 2/Insurer, through whom the insurance policy was issued in favour of the complainant, verified the claim application of the complainant and upon such verification the said GTFS, the OP No. 1, forwarded the claim case of the complainant.  The OP No. 2/Insurer has not been able to produce any independent material to prove the falsity of the claim of the complainant/Respondent before the Forum below.  Accordingly, the plea as taken by the Insurer/Appellant as above cannot also be sustained.

For the reasons as aforesaid we do not find any material whatsoever in support of the Appellant to interfere with the judgement and order passed by the Forum below.  The Appeal is accordingly dismissed.