Date of filing :- 16/05/2015.
Date of Order :- 17/07/2017.
DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL FORUM (COURT)
B A R G A R H.
Consumer Complaint No.32 of 2015.
Sri Ramesh Pradhan S/o-Late Gokul Pradhan aged about 51(fifty one) years, Occupation:- Cultivation, R/o/Village:- Arjunda, P.o:- Pandkipali, P.s./Tahasil:-Sohela, Dist-Bargarh (Odisha). ..... ..... ..... Complainant.
-: V e r s u s :-
The Branch Manager, New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Bargarh Branch, Bargarh, At:- N.H.6, Near Gurudwara, Dist- Bargarh. ..... ..... ..... Opposite Party.
Counsel for the Parties.
For the Complainant:- Sri M.K. Satpathy, Advocate with other Advocates.
For the Opposite Party:- Sri A.K. Mishra, Advocate with other Advocates.
-: P R E S E N T :-
Sri Krishna Prasad Mishra ..... ..... ..... ..... P r e s i d e n t.
Sri Pradeep Kumar Dash ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... M e m b e r.
Ajanta Subhadarsinee ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... M e m b e r(w).
Dt.17/07/2017 -: J U D G E M E N T :-
Presented by Sri K.P. Mishra, President:-
Brief fact of the case ;-
The brief case of the Complainant is that his son namely Srimanta Pradhan had insured with the Opposite Party in one of it’s scheme namely Raasta Aapatti Kavach policy for accidental death for a sum assured amount of Rs.1,00,000/-(Rupees one lakh)only wherein he had paid an amount of Rs.180/-(Rupees one hundred eighty)only as premium on Dt.04.02.2014 for a period of one year from Dt.04.02.2014 to Dt.03.02.2015 vide policy No.55090148131800000048, during the subsistence of the same. He died out of a road accident at the N.H. near Arjunda Chowk while he was urinating on the road side on the way to his house, a white coloured Indico Car dashed against him from his back causing his death on Dt.26.04.2014.
Immediately there after the matter was reported before the police in the Sohela Police Station which was subsequently registered as P.S. Case No.72/2014 and charge sheet was submitted before the Court of S.D.J.M. Bargarh against the driver of the said car bearing No.OD-17-7811 and the said driver faced trail in court vide G.R.Case No.133 of 2014.
The further case of the Complainant is that since the deceased had insured his life under the aforesaid policy of the Opposite Party. He has claimed for the insured amount of Rs.1,00.000/-(Rupees one lakh)only before the Opposite Party as the legal heir of his deceased son. But the Opposite Party avoided for the same on different pretext even after several reminder, thus the complaint praying for the payment of the due amount of Rs.1,00,000/-(Rupees one lakh)only and as has been harassed by the deficient action, and unfair trade practice of the Opposite Party, has claimed Rs.50,000/-(Rupees fifty thousand)only as compensation, raising the date of the accident and the date of the issuance policy i.e Dt.24.04.2014 as cause of action. And in substantiation to his case has filed some relevant document such as the policy bond issued in favor of the deceased by the Opposite Party, the intimation letter sent to the Opposite Party and the copy of the police paper.
Having gone through the complaint, the documents relating to the insurance policy and police paper, and after hearing the counsel for the Complainant the Forum was pleased to admit the case and the Opposite Party was noticed to appear and file it’s version.
Having been noticed, the Opposite Party appeared and filed it’s version before the Forum wherein it has denied it’s liability in paying the claim sought for by the Complainant solely on the ground that the deceased has got no driving license at the time of the accident and has denied to have caused any deficiencies in rendering any service rather has claimed that the case is a false and fabricated one as such is liable to be dismissed U/s 26 of the Act. And to substantiate his plea has filed some documents such as (i) the copy of the policy (ii) the police paper (iii) The copy of the surveyor report, and some letters of reminder to produce the driving license of the deceased, and has filed it’s written arguments.
Having gone through the complaint, the documents filed by the Complainant, version and the documents filed by the Opposite Party thoroughly and after hearing the counsels of the respective parties, there are some points have come up before us for proper adjudication of the case.
Whether there is any deficiencies on the part of the Opposite Party ?
Whether the complainant is entitled to the relief sought for by him ?
While considering the question of deficiencies of service rendered to the Complainant, it is revealed from the policy bond it is clearly evident that the deceased has paid the premium in connection with the policy to insure him in case of personal accident under the aforesaid scheme of the Opposite Party to which the Opposite Party has also admitted in it’s version, also though it has denied in it’s version to have any knowledge of the police case relating to the accident later on it has relied upon the same and has filed the same police paper which it self amounts to unfair trade practice, further while examining the policy paper issued by the Opposite Party at time of the transaction with the deceased during his life time it has not been ascertained in any colum of the form about the query relating to the driving license nor ascertain as to whether the Complainant was having a vehicle of his own or not but has admittedly received the premium for the same and has issued the bond with a commitment to insure but when the accident has occurred and the Complainant has claimed for the compensation, the Opposite Party has asked for the same in stead of paying him the assured amount which it self amounts to deficiencies of service further more while scrutinizing the police paper it is clearly evident that the deceased while urinating on the side of the road the alleged car has dashed against him causing his death so in that case there is no question of any driving license for which the Opposite Party has been insisting on the other hand it can be inferred about the negative attitude of the Opposite Party in other ward it can be safely concluded that he is trying to avoid the claim of insurance amount which amounts to deficiency in rendering service, also is an unfair trade practice. Hence in view of the above facts and circumstances our views is assertive in favor of the Complainant and answered accordingly.
While considering the question as to whether the Complainant is entitled for the insured amount and for compensation amount, it is clearly analyzed by our discussion in the aforesaid paragraph wherein it clearly established that the Opposite Party is very much deficient in rendering service to the Complainant and also played hide and seek game with him putting him in to mental and physical agony as he has suffered irreparable loss due to the demise of his son( the insured) and on the other side the negative attitude of the Opposite Party, for which in our logistic view the Complainant is entitled for the sum assured amount and the compensation for his mental and physical harassment too, hence our views is assertive in favor of the Complainant and answered accordingly. Hence order follows.
O R D E R
In view of the facts and circumstances mentioned above, the Opposite Party is directed to pay the insured amount of Rs.1,00,000/-(Rupees one lakh) only and an amount of Rs.5,000/-(Rupees five thousand) only with interest @ of 9% (nine percent) per annum from the date of filing of the case till date of this Order within thirty days from the date of receipt of the order in default of which an interest @ of 14% (fourteen percent) per annum would accrue on the total amount till the actual realization of the total amount. Hence Order pronounced to-day on Dt.17.07.2017 in the open Forum in the result the complaint is allowed against the Opposite Party.
The case is accordingly disposed off.
Typed to my dictation
and corrected by me.
(Sri Krishna Prasad Mishra)
P r e s i d e n t.
I agree, I agree,
(Ajanta Subhadarsinee) (Sri Pradeep Kumar Dash)
M e m b e r. M e m b e r.
