Sri A.K. Bhattacharyya, President

          In epitome the complainant’s case may be stated as follows:

          The complainant’s father (namely Lt. Niranjan Bhowmik) since deceased had an insurance policy being no. 100300/47/01/760022/02/96/30492 for the period from 31.03.2003 to 30.03.2018 after payment of premium to the OP no.1 through the OP no.2. The insured value of the aforesaid policy was Rs.100000/-. The complainant is the nominee of the said policy. The complainant’s father, i.e. the policy holder, died on 24.05.2010 due to train accident at Mahammadpur, Uttar Pradesh. The complainant being the nominee of the insurance policy placed his claim towards accident benefit after submitting all relevant papers relating to the said policy. But the OP did not pay any attention  to the said claim, rather they declined to settle the said claim accidental insurance policy, hence the case for relief as sought for.

          In order to substantiate the case, the complainant produced some Xeroxed documents on record (Policy Certificate, Janata Personal Accident Insurance Policy Claim Form and some other documents including Death Certificate of the policy holder) as per list.

          The OP no.1 and 2 contested the case by filing separate W/V whereby all the material allegations made against them by the complainant have been denied. It is stated interalia by the OP no.1 that this OP by a letter dtd. 19.04.2012 asked the complainant to submit Disbursement Voucher along with an Indemnity Bond but the complainant did not submit the said document for which the OP could not disburse the claim amount. The OP no.2 has stated in its W/V that Golden Multi Services Club of GTFS are regarded as Insured Facilitator without any liability about the settlement of the claim.

          The OP no.1 filed a Xerox copy of letter dtd. 19.04.2012 addressed to the complainant. The OP no.2 filed a photocopy of Memorandum of Understanding dtd. 01.01.2001 between the OP no.1 and OP no.2 in order to support their defense.

Point for consideration

Whether the complainant is entitled to any relief as sought for?

Decision with reason

          We have carefully gone through the petition of complaint, W/Vs, W/N/A and the documents filed by the parties on record. Considered the submissions of Ld. Advocates of both sides.

          It is admitted that Lt. Niranjan Kumar Bhowmik since deceased being the father of the complainant obtained the aforesaid Janata Personal Accident Insurance Policy from the OP no.1 under group insurance scheme being facilitated by the OP no.2 for a sum insured of Rs. 100000/- for the period from 31.03.2003 to 30.03.2018. Undisputedly, the complainant is the nominee of the said policy. There is no dispute with regard to death of the said policy holder, Niranjan Kumar Bhowmik, caused by accident. The OP no. 1 had already received the duly filled claim form from the complainant along with the relevant papers within the stipulated period after death of the said policy holder. The OP no.1 stated specifically in para 14 of his W/V filed on 23.11.2012 on record that they approved the claim. The only grievance on the part of the OP no.1 is that the complainant did not submit the Disbursement Voucher along with an Indemnity Bond as asked for vide their letter dtd. 19.04.2012 for which they could not disburse the claim amount.

          But no document has been produced on the part of the OP no.1 to show the service of the said letter upon the complainant, while the complainant had already submitted the duly filled in form along with relevant documents as asked for. The OP no.1 filed on record a photocopy of letter dtd. 19.04.2012 addressed to the complainant in the matter of sending the Disbursement Voucher in duplicate for Rs.100000/-.

          The circumstances, as mentioned above, squarely points out that there has been deficiency in service on the part of the OP no.1 and so the complainant is entitled to relief.

          The above point is, thus, disposed of in favour of the complainant.

          Hence, it, is,

ORDERED

          that the complaint case being no. CC-24 of 2012 be and the same is allowed on contest against the OP no.1 with cost of Rs.500/- and dismissed against the OP no.2 without any cost. The OP no.1 is directed to pay Rs.100000/- together with cost of Rs.500/- to the complainant within 40 days from this day failing which the complainant shall have the liberty to execute the order in accordance with law, in which case the OP no.1 shall be liable to pay interest @10% p.a. on the total amount from this day till compliance of the order.

S.S. Ali                                                     S.Dutta                                            A.K. Bhattacharyya

Member                                                    Member                                           President