IN THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, MURSHIDABAD AT BERHAMPORE.

                        CASE No.  CC/91/2018.

 Date of Filing:                    Date of Admission:                Date of Disposal:

                17.05.18                                     06.06.18                                             06.08.19

Complainant:  Lilabati Pal, w/o Dulal Chandra Pal

     271, Sutir Math, Mankumari Road,

     Gorabazar, P.S. Berhampore,

     Dist-Murshidabad,

     Pin-742101.

-Vs-

Opposite Party: The Branch Manager, State Bank of India,

                           SBI Life Insurance Company Ltd.

        47/G/1, K.K.Banerjee Road,

        Gorabazar, P.S. Berhampore,

        Dist-Murshidabad,

        Pin-742101.

Agent/Advocate for the Complainant          : Smt. Bidishya Sarkar

Agent/Advocate for the Opposite Party: Smt. Monalisa Dutta Thakur

Present:   Sri Asish  Kumar Senapati………………….......President.                             

                Smt. Aloka Bandyopadhyay……………………..Member.

FINAL ORDER

       Asish Kumar Senapati, Presiding Member.

          This is a complaint under section 12 of the CP Act, 1986.

                   One Lilabati Pal, (here in after referred to as the Complainant) filed the case against the Branch Manager, State Bank of India, SBI Life Insurance Company Ltd. (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 Complainant’s  son , namely Kalidas pal  insured his life with the O.P. vide Policy No. 1K026358807 and the sum assured was Rs. 6,00,000/-. Kalidas Pal died on 04.04.16 and after death of Kalidas Pal  , the complainant being mother and  Barnali Pal, being wife of Kalidas pal lodged claim vide Claim ID No. 102459/II  but the O.P. paid the total amount to the account of  Barnali Pal on 31.05.17. Barnali Pal left the home of the Complainant after demise of  her husband.  The O.P. issued a letter to Barnali Pal on 27.07.17 to refund of Rs. 3,00,000/-. The O.P. did not pay any heed to the request of the complainant. The O.P. has deficiency of service. The complainant has prayed for a direction  upon the O.P. to pay Rs. 3,00,000/- together with interest @ 15% p.a. and to pay sum of Rs. 50,000/- as compensation and Rs. 800/- as cost.                      

                    The OP contested the case by filing written version on 14.02.19  contending that the case is not maintainable. The O.P. admitted the fact that total amount of Rs. 6,00,000/- had been paid to Barnali Pal , wife of Kalidas Pal due to inadvertence. The O.p. sent a letter to  Barnali pal on 27.07.17 to refund of Rs. 3,00,000/- and  she is a necessary party. The O.p. has prayed for dismissal of the Complaint.

                   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 has claimed 50% of the assured sum as a nominee of her son Kalidas pal, since,deceased.

          The Ld. Advocate for the submits that the complainant is not aconsumer. He argues that a nominee can not file complaint before any consumer Forum without impleading all successors of the Insured. He draws our attention to a decision of the A.P. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission at Hyderabad passed in F.A. No 334 of 2013 dated 10.09.13.

                   We have gone through the  written complainant, written Version, evidence, written argument and documents submitted by both sides.  With due regard to the decision as referred by the ld. Advocate for the O.P. , we think that  principles of the said decision  cannot be ignored but the said decision is not applicable in the present case as the facts and circumstances of this case are different. In the present case, the Complainant is not only a nominee of  her son Kalidas Pal, since deceased but she is a successor of her son, kalidas Pal. The complainant has asserted that her son Kalidas Pal died on 04.04.16 leaving behind his wife Barnali Pal and his mother, the complainant. The O.P. has not denied the said fact.    The complainant has filed the case as nominee and legal heir of Kalidas Pal, since deceased. Hence, we hold that the Complainant is a consumer as she has claimed 50% of the assured sum as a nominee  and successor of her son Kalidas pal, since,deceased.

          Point No.2

                   The Ld. Advocate for the complainant submits that this Forum has both territorial and pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the complainant.

             The Ld. Advocate for the O.P. submits that this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the complainant.

                   On going through the written complaint, written version, evidence of the Complainant and xerox copies of documents, we find that this Forum has both territorial and pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the complaint.

          Point No.3&4

                  The Ld. Advocate for the Complainant submits that the O.P. has admitted their mistake in their letter dated 27.07.17 adressed to Barnali Pal by stating that as per nomination received from late Kalidas Pal only 50% of the claim is payable to her and remaining 50% has to be paid to the complainant, mother of late Kalidas Pal but erroneously the entire amount was paid to the account of Barnali Pal. It is contended that the O.P. has deficiency of service and the complainant is entitled to get 50% of the sum assured alongwith interest and cost of litigation against the O.P.

                   In reply, the Ld. Advocate for the O.P. submits that the  complaint is not maintainable due to defect of parties. It is urged that the Complainant has not made Barnali Pal as a party in spite of  objection raised by the O.P.

                   We have gone through the written complaint, written version, evidence , written argument filed by both parties and xerox copies of documents filed by both sides.  We have also considered the submission of both sides.

                   Admittedly, the complainant is  a nominee for 50% share of the policy of her son Kalidas Pal, since deceased , as per letter issued by the O.P. dated  27.07.17. (Annex – 1) and the O.P. disbursed entire  amount of Rs. 6,00,000/- to the account of Mrs. Barnali Pal, wife of Kalidas Pal on 31.05.17.. The O.P. disbursed the total amount in favour of Mrs. Barnali Pal in violation of nomination executed by Kalidas Pal, since deceased. The O.P. has not denied the fact that Kalidas Pal died leaving behind his wife Barnali Pal and mother, the complaint as his heirs. The O.P. has raised the point of defect of party on the plea that Barnali Pal has not been made a party. In our considered opinion,the objection of the O.P. holds no water. The O.P. mistakenly disbursed the total amount of Rs. 6,00,000/- to Barnali Pal on 31.05.17 in violation of the mandate given in the policy and they have not yet stared any process to recver the excess amount of Rs. 3,00,000/- from Barnali Pal for the reason best known to them. We find no justification to hold that the case is bad for non joinder of Barnali Pal. It is the headache of the O.P. how and when they will recover the excess amount from Mrs. Barnali Pal but it is clear from the acts of the O.P. that they are not willing to settle the legitimate claim of the complainant, who is an old lady waiting for a long perid after death of her son The silence of the O.P. for a long period to settle the claim of the complainant is undoubtedly deficiency in  service on the part of the O.P.. In our considered opinion, the Complainant is entitled to get 50% of the  sum assured along with interest @ 8% p.a. w.e.f. 31.05.17 and Rs. 20,000/ as compensation for deficiency of service and mental pain and agony. We also think that the complainant is entitled to get Rs. 800/- as liligation cost against the O. P.

          Reasons for delay

                   The Case was filed on 17.05.18 and admitted on 06.06.18 . 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.

                   In the result, the Consumer case succeeds.

                   Fees paid are correct. Hence, it is

                                        Ordered

that the complaint Case No.CC/91/2018 be and the same is hereby allowed on contest against the OP with cost of Rs. 800/-.

                   The O.P. is directed to pay Rs. 3,00,000/- along with interest @ 8% p.a. w.e.f. 31.05.17 to the complainant by 45 days from the date of this order. The O.P. is also directed to pay Rs. 20,000/ as compensation for deficiency of service and mental pain and agonyand to pay  Rs. 800/- as liligation cost to the complainant by 45 days from the date of this order. In default of compliance of the order by 45 days from the date of this order, the O.P. shall have to pay Rs. 50/- for each day’s delay and the accumulated amount will be deposited in the Consumer Legal Aid Account.                            

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.