By : SMT SYEDA SHAHNUR ALI, MEMBER
One Satyagopal Bhunia being the husband of the complainant Smt. Sutapa Bhunia died due to a motor cycle accident being. Being owner of the Motor cycle No. WB 30 B/5590 the deceased was driving it and met with the accident on 03.02.2003 at about 10 PM at Khejuri near Erencha Bridge under Khejuri PS, Dist. Purba Medinipur. He died leaving behind his wife and a minor daughter. Deceased Satyagopal Bhaunia had Driving License being No. 153 dated 17.012003 valid up to 01.07.2007.
Said Satyagopal Bhunia took an insurance policy for said motor cycle being certificate No. WV 031701/31/02/03546 for the period covered from 21.12.2002 to 23.12.2003 of which own damaged was for Rs. 1,00,000/- from the OP. After the accident it was informed to Heria IC under Khejuri PS on 06.02.2003 and Khejuri PS started PS case No.7/2003 dated 06.02.3003 u/sec 279/304A/427 IPC. The complainant also informed about the accident to the OP on 13.08.2003. The OP opened a claim docket being No. 03/701/31/03/80074 but they closed the claim docket on 08.01.2004 on false ground of invalid driving license of the driver of the motor cycle. Thereafter the complainant again demanded such claim by letter dated 13.06.2005 and 17.06.2006 respectively. Thereafter the OP demanded documents from this complainant by their letter dated 24.08.2005 which was sent by the complainant but again the OP demanded some documents by their letter dated 19.10.2006 which were also sent by the complainant. The complainant also sent letters dated 19.11.2006 and 25.05.2016 to the OP but till date the Opposite party Insurance Co. did not settle the claim nor the OP repudiated the said claim till date which amounts to deficiency of service on the part of the OP Insurance Co. Hence, this case has been filed.
The Opposite party Insurance Co. entered appearance and filed their written version. The OP stated in their written version and argument that the application before this Forum is not maintainable due to non-joinder of necessary party. Smt Sandhyarani Bhunia, mother of the deceased Satyagopal Bhunia is a necessary party and the instant application is barred by limitation. The OP also stated that the cause of death of the deceased is disputed one. One Mahitosh Bhunia lodged a complaint to the Khejuri PS with regard to the incident i.e death of Satyagopal Bhunia stating that Satyagopal Bhujia died by the accident between his motor cycle and one Unknown TATA SUMO and the same has been recorded as Khejuri PS case no. 7/2003 and it became GR Case No. 51/2003 subsequently.
Points for discussion in the instant case is (1) whether their was latches of service on the part of the OP and (2) whether the complainant is entitled to get the relief as prayed for.
Decision with Reasons
On going through the records, i.e pleadings and materials therein we find that the OP expressed their doubt as to the cause of death of the victim in para 19 of their written version. It is also brought about by the OP that the mother of the deceased Smt. Sandhyarani Bhunia informed the Branch Manager of the OP on 16.01.2008 that her son was murdered by Tapan Bera and Smt Sutapa Bhunia. We also find that father of the deceased lodged a complaint before the ld SDJM Contai u/sec 156(3) of the Cr.P.C stating that his son Satyagopal Bhunia was murdered by Tapan Bera and Smt. Sutapa Bhunia. On such statement ACJM Contai referred the case to Khejuri PS U/Sec. 156(3) Cr.P.C and Khejuri PS stated Case No. 46/2003 dated 04.11.2003 u/sec 304/406/34 IPC against Sutapa Bhunia and Tapan Bera. On going through the documents filed by the OP i.e the certified copy of order sheet dated 10.12.2003 of the ld SDJM Contai we find the findings of the ld court “ During investigation no foul play other than Road Traffic Accident by the driver himself could be established.” Hence final report has been filed to that effect in the case vide Khejuri PS FRT No. 68/2003 dated 16.11.2003. The OP has filed Xerox copy of the FRT No. 68/2003 wherein we find that the complaint made by one Mahitosh Bhunia for alleged death at about 22.00 hrs in the night of 03.02.2003 that his grand-son Satyagopal Bhunia while returning home from Kalinagar Bajar was dashed by one TATA SUMO car and fell down on the road with injury. He was taken to Contai SD Hospital by local people from where he was taken to SSKM Hospital, Kalkata and at SSKM Hospital, Kalkata he expired on 05.03.2003 but the details of the TATA SUMO could not be collected as mentioned in the said FRT. The complainant filed Xerox copy of post mortem report and opinion of the CMOH being part of the order passed by the ld SDJM Contai wherein we find opinion of the doctor ”that the injuries as detected during the post mortem examination of the case were very consistent with the RTA and not other than other case.”
There is no doubt that the OP has placed before this Forum the extract of the order dated 24.12.2003 passed by the ld SDJM Contai in peace meal manner. We also find from the order sheet of MP case No. 7801/2003 being GR case No. 425/2003 filed by one Chitta Ranjan Bhunia against Sri Tapan Bera. Be that as it may, we also find a letter issued by Smt. Sandharani Bhunia addressed to the Manager of the Contai Branch in respect of the MP case No. 216/2004 wherein she stated that the death of her son was not due to any accident with TATA SUMO and the cause of death of her son is murdered. Hence, she did not want any compensation in the MACC case. Be that as it may, it is fact that death was due to RTA and the deceased was insured with the Opposite Party Insurance Co. It is admitted position that the petitioner’s husband died due to road traffic accident. OP being the Insurance Co. delayed the legitimate claim of the petitioner, as such OP is duty bound to pay the insurance claim which they are avoiding on purpose.
We find in the record of GR case, in the extract copy of order no. 60 dated 18.11.14 passed by the ld. ACJM Contai which is self-explanatory.
We also find that the OP had used all sorts of tactics and techniques to avoid the payment claimed by the petitioner and has taken all possible measures to harass the complainant. As such there is gross deficiency and negligence on the part of the OP in not settling the claim of Sutapa Bhunia. The OP till date did not repudiate the claim of the petitioner, rather they had closed the file of Sutapa Bhunia as ‘ No claim’ due to invalid driving license and not on the ground that there being multiplicity of cases surrounding death of Satyagopal Bhunia. Moreover, the DL issued to the deceased by the RTA concerned goes to show that it was valid from 17.01.2003 to 16.07.2003 and another license issued by the RTO South 24 Parganas, Alipore is valid from 02.07.2002 and date of expiry is 10.7.2007. Therefore, at the time of the accident in question the driver of the motorcycle had valid license. As such the ground for closing the file by the OP is with only a malifide intention and not to pay the legitimate claim of the petitioner for death of her husband which was unjust and dishonor of the claim of the petitioner herein at the time when she had extreme need of money as she was having an infant to look after who was just five day’s old on the date of death of her father and it was inhuman act on the part of the OP and compelled the claimant to file this case before this Forum.
In the aforesaid circumstances, we find that there is deficiency of service on the part of the OP case and the claimant is entitled to get the reliefs as prayed for in the petition of complaint.
Hence, it is
O R D E R E D
That the complaint case being No. 251 of 2016 be and the same is allowed in favour of the complainant on contest against the OP.
The OP is directed to pay Rs 1,00,000/- to the complainant within 30 days from the date of this order with interest at the rate of Rs.10 % per annum from the date of filing of this application till full payment together with a sum of Rs. 20,000/- as compensation towards harassment and Rs. 5000/- as litigation cost within one month from the date of this order failing which the OP shall be liable to pay Rs 200/- per diem as punitive charge which would be payable to Consumer Welfare Fund.
Let copy of the judgment be supplied to all the parties free of costs.
