Order No. 18 Dt. 22.07.2015
This is a case u/s 12 of the C.P. Act, 1986 filed by the petitioners Smt. Barnali Das W/o. Shri Ujjal Das and Smt. Shrabanti Pal W/o Sri Tapan Pal resident of Vivekananda Pally, Kalapathar and Saraju Prasad Road respectively of P.S. English Bazar, P.O. Malda within the district of Malda claiming disbursement of claim amount of Rs. 300000/-, Mental Agony Rs.100000/- and cost of litigation Rs.20000/-.
The case of the petitioners is that their father Manik Kr. Das had an Insurance Policy being No. 100300/47/01/9600022/02/96/30406. The said policy was valid from 01.03.2003 to 28.03.2018. The policy covers death benefit of Rs.300000/- . Smt. Archana Das was nominee and she died on 04.12.2013. Manik Kr. Das died on 09.12.2013. Petitioner deposited all the papers to O.P. Insurance Company but the respondent no.1 refused to issue any receipt but assured that the amount will be disbursed within seven days but no fruitful result comes. So they filed the case in this Forum claiming Death Insurance Policy amount of Rs.300000/-, compensation and mental agony Rs. 100000/- cost of litigation Rs. 20000/-.
O.P. No.1, filed W/S. They admit in their W/S that Manik Kr. Das is a consumer of O.P. No.2 National Insurance Co. Ltd. and O.P. No. 1 Golden Trust sent the papers at the time of opening Insurance Policy of Sri Manik Kr. Das. They totally denied the receiving of any papers after the death of Manik Das from the petitioners.
O.P. 2 denied all the material allegation contending inter alia that the death of the Manik Kr. Das was not accidental in nature and there is no question of any claim under the said policy. The case of the petitioner must be dismissed and there is no cause of action filed in this case by the petitioner.
On the above cases of the parties the following issues are framed:-
- Whether the case 68/2014 is maintainable in its present form ?
- Whether the case is barred by limitation?
- Whether the petitioner has any cause of action to file the case?
- Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the NIC in disbursing the claim amount to the petitioners?
- Whether the petitioners are entitled to get any relief as prayed for?
:DECISION WITH REASONS::
Issue Nos. 1,2,3, 4 & 5
All the issues are taken up together for the sake of convenience and brevity of discussion and to skip of reiteration and also all these issues are interrelated and interdependent.
Petitioners are examined as P.W.-1 and P.W.-2. Besides this oral evidence, petitioners filed some documents which are marked as follows:
Ext.-1 the postal receipt, Ext.-2, the copy of letter sent by Registered Post by one of the petitioners dt. 11.07.2014 to O.P. No.2, death certificate issued by the competent authority marked Ext.-3. One certificate issued from Malda Medical College Hospital, Department of Forensic Medicine and Technology marked Ext.-4, Post Mortem Report Ext.-5, Insurance Policy Papers, Ext.-6.
The petitioners PW-1 and PW-2 categorically stated in their evidence, that their father Manik Kr. Das had an Insurance Policy being No. 100300/47/01/9600022/02/96/30406. The said policy was valid from 01.03.2003 to 28.03.2018. The policy covers death benefit of Rs.300000/- . Smt. Archana Das, wife of Manik Kr. Das was nominee and she died on 04.12.2013. Manik Kr. Das died on 09.12.2013. Petitioner requested O.P. No.1 to issue acknowledgement of all the papers submitted but the respondent no.1 refused to issue any receipt but assured that the amount will be disbursed within seven days but no fruitful result came. So they filed the case in this Forum claiming compensation as per Insurance Policy. But they did not file the FIR before this Forum but only filed the P.M. report i.e. Ext.-5 and one Certificate issued by Dr. Ashutosh Sarkar who issued Ext.-4 and from this Ext.-4 it reveals that one U.D. case started being No. 779/13 dt.09.12.13 u/s 174 CRPC which is nothing but inquest reporting by the Magistrate in an unnatural death case. It also reveals from the Ext.-5 that there is a case of burn injuries and massive deep burn, while the burn cause is not reflected and the petitioner did not file the FIR or the written complaint in this case. It also reveals from the evidence that deceased Manik Das, the insured, made nominee to Archana Das and the death certificate of the said nominee was not filed in this case. Ld.Advocate for the O.P. No.2 draw our attention by saying that they did not receive any claim soon after the death of deceased Manik Das. As per the policy norms the cause of death must be sent to the Insurance Co. within one month of the death of the insured. Ld.Advocate also submits that the petitioners sent letter by registered post to the General Manager, Division III, 1, Shakespeare Sarani 6th Floor, Kolkata – 71. There is no such post of General Manager so they did not make the proper party in this case but we are seeing that the notice was sent to the address but the Ld.Advocate appeared but his submission has no Locus Standi. He is none but representing the O.P. No.2 the National Insurance Co. Ltd. It is true that the petitioners are other sisters, i.e. the deceased has other legal heir and they did not file any succession certificate in this case and the other legal heirs are not made party in this case. The Insurance Co. also did not receive any such documents from the petitioners. Not only that when the nominee is expired prior to the death of the insured then the Insurance Co. rightly rejected their claim not to disburse the amount, not only that, the petitioners did not file any FIR for which it cannot be known that the burn caused the death. Petitioners did not file any succession certificate or any document before this Forum regarding the death of their mother. We, therefore, hold that there are no latches on the part of the Insurance Co. O.P. No.2 for not allowing the claim amount as claim when the petitioners are not able to establish any deficiency on their part. On the other hand the deficiency is on the part of the petitioners, not filing the FIR or the written complaint and the succession certificate or legal heir certificate.
In the result, the claim case fails.
Court fee, paid is correct.
Hence, ordered,
that Malda D.F. Case No. 68/2014 be and the same is hereby dismissed but without any order as to cost.
Let a copy of this order be given to each of the parties free of cost.
