Order No. 10 Dt. 22.04.2015
This is an application under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, filed by the petitioner Pushpa Paul W/o Radha Gobinda Paul praying for an order directing the opposite parties for her claim of Rs.100000/- against personal accident policy in ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. for his diseased son and a compensation for harassment and mental agony of Rs. 30000/- along with cost of litigation of Rs.10000/-.
The case of the petitioner is that she is a village woman & wife of Radha Gobinda Pal, lives in village Kendua P.O. Bulbulchandi under the district of Malda. His son was a business-person and purchased one Honda Motor Cycle with No. WB66N/3643 and had a personal accident policy bearing Policy No. 3005/ 2010776075/0000000366 valid from 18.10.12 to 17.10.13. and the son of the petitioner died to a rail accident at Malda and the said accidental death after being duly registered she intimated the death news to the O.P. No.2 in written form along with relevant documents but she did not receive any compensation as per policy norms and thus she filed this case at this Forum.
O.P. Nos. 1 and 2 contested the case by filing a written version wherein they denied the material allegations made against them and submitted that the accident took place in Rail not related to motor-cycle accident and the policy was only under Motor Vehicles Act and Rule and not under General Insurance Policy. Railway police started an unnatural death case on 14.02.2013 and there was the Malda Town GRP Case No. 12/13 dt.14.02.2013. So the petitioner is not entitled to get any compensation for the death of their son. The complainant is also not entitled to any relief and dismissal of the case has been prayed for.
On the above cases of the parties the following issues are framed:
- Is the D.F. Case No. 71/2014 is maintainable in its present form?
- Whether the petitioner has any cause of action to file the case?
- Whether there is any deficiency in service on behalf of the O.Ps?
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to the relief as prayed for?
::DECISION WITH REASONS::
Issue Nos. 1,2,3,4,5 and 6
All the issues are taken up together for the convenience and brevity of discussion and to skip of reiteration.
In support of his case the petitioner Pushpa Paul deposed before the Forum as P.W.-1 and submitted that she is a village woman being wife of Radha Gobinda Paul lives in village Kendua P.O. Bulbulchandi under district Malda. His son was a business-person and purchased one Honda Motor Cycle with No. WB66N/3643 and had a personal accident policy bearing Policy No. 3005/ 2010776075/0000000366 valid from 18.10.12 to 17.10.13. and the son of the petitioner died to a rail accident at Malda and the said accidental death after being duly registered she intimated the death news to the O.P. No.2 in written form along with relevant documents but she did not receive any compensation as per policy norms and thus she filed this case at this Forum. Besides, the petitioner though filed 11 documents as per firisti, ten documents were available except SL. No. 11 being the copy of postal receipt, & the documents marked as Exts.1to Ext.10. Ext.-1 is the copy of Post Mortem Report of diseased Bishwajit Paul, Ext.-2 is xerox copy of Death Certificate, Ext.-3 Copy of RC Book, Ext.-4 Copy of policy, Ext.-5 Copy of Tax, Ext.-6 Copy of Driving License, Ext.-7 Copy of Voter Card of Diseased Biswajit Paul, Ext.-8 Copy of Voter Card of Puspa Pal, Ext.-9, Copy of GP Certificate,& Ext.-10 is the copy of letter of date 14.07.2013.
The petitioner Puspa Paul, mother of diseased, appeared as P.W.-1 and in her evidence she said that her son Biswajit Paul died in a train accident when he was coming to Malda and the accident took place near Hanta Kali Bari area of Malda town which is within jurisdiction of Malda District and she further admitted in her cross-examination that her son died in rail accident but not in motor cycle accident.
From the Insurance policy (Ext.-4) (Two Wheeler Package Policy – Certificate cum Policy Schedule), it is revealed that the diseased son purchased one Hero Honda Motorcycle and the insurance policy was procured as per terms and conditions of the Motor Vehicles Act and the said policy was taken on 18.10.2012 and it remained valid up to 17.10.2013 and the diseased son died on 14.02.2013 i.e. within the validity of the insurance period. From perusal of the documents and also from the evidence of the petitioner it appears to be an admitted fact that the cause of death is not from the accident of motor cycle and there is no iota of evidence that the diseased son had General Insurance Policy. So the ld. Advocate of the O.P. rightly argued that the petitioner is not entitled to get any claim as per the policy norms.
Keeping in mind the submissions of the ld. counsels of both the parties along-with in-depth looking into the oral as well as the documentary evidences of the case and also cultivating from the angle of rationality, this Forum, came to the conclusion that the petitioner did not succeed to prove her case and thus the case of the petitioner does not stand in contest.
All the issues are decided in favour of the O.Ps as against the petitioner.
In the result, the consumer claim case fails.
Court fees, paid on the petition, is correct.
Hence, ordered
that the D.F. Consumer Case No. 71/2014 be and the same is hereby dismissed on contest without any order as to cost.
Let a copy of the order be given to each of the parties free of cost.
