IN THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, MURSHIDABAD AT BERHAMPORE.
CASE No. CC/168/2018.
Date of Filing: Date of Admission: Date of Disposal:
02.11.18 26.11.18 11.09.19
Complainant: Iswar Konai
S/o Late Dijapada Konai
47, Old Police Line Road
Vill&PO- Panchgram, PS-Nabagram
Dist-Murshidabad, Pin-742184
-Vs-
Opposite Party: Branch Manager, Life Insurance Corporation Of India (LICI)
Berhampore Branch, Krishnath Road,
PO&PS-Berhampore,
Dist-Murshidabad,
Pin-742101
Agent/Advocate for the Complainant : Sri. Rajdip Goswami.
Agent/Advocate for the Opposite Party : Sri. Saugata Biswas.
Present: Sri Asish Kumar Senapati………………….......President.
Smt. Aloka Bandyopadhyay……………………..Member.
FINAL ORDER
One Iswar konai (here in after referred to as the Complainant) filed the case against the Branch Manager, Life Insurance Corporation of India, Berhampore Branch (here in after referred to as the OP) praying for compensation alleging deficiency in service.
The sum and substance of the complaint case is as follows:-
The mother of the Complainant Gouri Bala Mondal had a Life Insurance Policy being No.426233551 dated 21.03.07 and the assured sum was Rs.50,000/- and she had been depositing quarterly premiums of the said police as per terms and conditions of the policy. Unfortunately, Gouri Bala Mondal died in an accident on 08.07.16 and the matter was informed by the Complainant to the OP and claimed the assured sum of the policy along with death claim and other benefits. The OP paid only Rs.42,371/- to the Complainant against the policy but did not pay any amount of accidental death of Gouri Bala Mondal. The Complainant submitted a complaint before the Assistant Director, CA & FBP, Murshidabad Regional Office and the representatives of the OP appeared before the said office on 21.06.18 and it was assured that a physical enquiry in the matter of accident was to be made within 1 month from the date of mediation. In spite of that the OP did not visit the home of the Complainant for enquiry. So, the Complainant has filed this case praying for a direction upon the OP to pay Rs.50,000/- as accidental claim of deceased Gouri Bala Mondal with bonus and 10% interest from the date of death, compensation of Rs.25,000/- and Rs.10,000/- for litigation cost.
The OP contested the case by filing written version on 15.01.19 contending that the case is barred by law of limitation. It is the case of the OP that the Complainant is the nominee of Gouri Bala Mondal since deceased who lodged the claim without intimating the cause of death of said Gouri Bala Mondal on 28.07.16 and accordingly the OP rightly paid basic sum assured on 04.11.16. The Complainant at first informed the OP that the cause of death was drowning. After taking all documents of accidental death and after proper enquiry, the OP must pay the accidental benefit to the Complainant. Ultimately, the Complainant submitted a certificate of the Officer In-charge of Nabagram P.S. dated 03.02.18 regarding the cause of death of Gouri Bala Mondal and after receiving the report of their surveyor, Debasish Chatterjee, the OP paid the accidental death claim to the Complainant on 13.12.18 to the bank account of the Complainant. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP. The OP prayed for dismissal of the complaint with cost.
On the basis of the above version the following points are framed for proper adjudication of the case :
Points for consideration
1. Isthe Complainant a consumer under the provision of the CP Act, 1986?
2. Has this Forum jurisdiction to entertain the complaint?
3. Has the OP any deficiency in service, as alleged?
4. Is the Complainant entitled to get any relief, as prayed for?
Point no.1
The Ld. Advocate for the Complainant submits that the Complainant is a consumer as she hired services of the OP for consideration.
On going through the complaint, written version and other materials on record and on a careful consideration over the submission of both sides, we find that the Complainant has rightly filed the case as heir and nominee of Gouri bala mondal, since deceased.
Point No.2
The Ld. Advocate for the Complainant submits that the cause of action arose within the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum and the claimed amount is also within pecuniary limit of the District Forum.
On a careful consideration over the materials on record, we find that the cause of action arose within the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum and this Forum has pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the complaint.
Point Nos.3&4
The Ld. Advocate for the Complainant submits that the OP paid Rs.50,000/- on 15.12.18 as death benefit of Gouri Bala Mondal to the Complainant after filing of this case. It is argued that the OP has deficiency in service as they did not settle the claim within a considerable period and compelled the complainant to file the case. It is urged that the Complainant is entitled to get compensation for deficiency in service and litigation cost against the OP.
In reply, the Ld. Advocate for the OP submits that on getting information from the Complainant and after receipt of relevant documents, the OP appointed a surveyor to investigate the cause of death and after getting report from their surveyor, Debasish Chatterjee , the OP paid Rs.50,000/- on 15.12.18 to the account of the Complainant. He argues that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP.
We have gone through the written complaint, written version, evidence of the Complainant , documents filed by both sides and written argument filed by the Complainant.
Admittedly, the Complainant is the nominee of Gouri Bala Mondal, since deceased and the Complainant claimed the death benefit of Gouri Bala Mondal who died on 08.07.16. It is the case of the OP that the delay in settling the claim was due to non-submission of relevant documents by the Complainant. But we find no documentary proof to believe that the OP issued any notice to the Complainant asking him to submit any document for settling the claim. It appears from memo No. 746 dated 27.09.18 issued by the Assistant Director, CA&FBP, Murshidabad, Regional Office that the representatives of the OP assured that they would make a physical enquiry in the matter of accident within 1 month from the date of meditation but the Complainant stated that no representative of the OP visited their home till 27.09.18. On a careful consideration, we find that the OP has not settled the claim of the Complainant within a reasonable period without any intimation to the Complainant. We think that the OP has deficiency in service.
In our considered opinion, the Complainant is entitled to get Rs.2,000/- as compensation for deficiency in service and Rs.2,000/- for litigation cost against the OP.
Reasons for delay
The Case was filed on 02.11.18 and admitted on 26.11.18 . This Forum tried its level best to dispose of the case as expeditiously as possible in terms of the provision under section 13(3A) of the CP Act,1986. Delay in disposal of the case has also been explained in the day to day orders.
Fees paid are correct.
In the result, the complaint Case succeeds. Hence, it is
ORDERED
that the complaint Case No. CC/168/2018 be and the same is hereby allowed on contest against the OP with litigation cost of Rs.2,000/- to the Complainant.
The OP is directed to pay Rs. 2,000/- as compensation for deficiency in service to the Complainant by sixty days from the date of this order.
The OP is further directed to pay Rs.2,000/- as litigation cost to the Complainant by sixty days from the date of this order.
Let plain copy of this order be supplied free of cost, to each of the parties / Ld. Advocate/Agent on record, by hand /by post under proper acknowledgment as per rules, for information and necessary action.
The Final Order will also be available in the following Website:
confonet.nic.in
Dictated & corrected by me.
President
Member President.
