C.F. CASE No.          : CC/09/14                                                                                                         

 

COMPLAINANT             :  Aleya Bewa

W/o – Lt. Josimuddin Sk.

Resident of Plassey Janaki Nagar,

P.O. Plassey Sugar Mill,

P.S. Kaliganj, Dist. Nadia 

 

       –  Vs  – 

 

OPPOSITE PARTIES/OPs   : 1.  The Manager,

The National Insurance Co. Ltd.

Div. III, 1, Shakespeare Sarani,

6th Floor, Kolkata – 700 071.

 

             : 2. The Manger,

National Insurance Co. Ltd., 

Krishnagar Branch, M.M. Ghosh Street

P.O. Krishnagar, P.S. Kotwali,

Dist. Nadia   

 

             : 3. The Manager,

Golden Trust Financial Services,

Krishnagar Branch, R.N. Tagore Road,

P.O. Krishnagar, P.S. Kotwali,

Dist. Nadia   

 

 

PRESENT              :  KANAILAL CHAKRABORTY             PRESIDENT

        :  KUMAR MUKHOPADHYAY          MEMBER

        :  SMT SHIBANI BHATTACHARYA       MEMBER  

DATE OF DELIVERY             

OF  JUDGMENT               :    26th November, 2009.

 

 

:    J U D G M E N T    :

 

Page 2 of 6

In brief, the case of the complainant is that her son, one Ijajul Sk @ Ija Sk was murdered on 05.12.02.  Accordingly FIR was lodged on that date and postmortem of the dead body was held on 06.12.02.   It is her further case that prior to death of Ijaj[ul Sk, he insured his life amounting to Rs. 1,00,000/- on 22.09.01 vide policy No. 100300/47/2K/9601062/2K/96/00576 under the OP No. 1 and that insurance was valid up to 22.09.2013.  The complainant being his mother is the nominee of that insurance policy.  On 12.12.02 the complainant submitted claim before the OP No. 1, but to no effect.   Within one month since the death of her son her husband died in an accident on 29.01.03.  As a result of this, the complainant became perplexed and was suffering from mental depression.  Even she could not attend at the funeral ceremony of her husband.  Since then she was under the treatment of a doctor who issued a fit certificate on 31.07.08.  On 01.11.08, she came to the office of the OP No. 3 at Krishnagar who advised her to file an application for claim within one or two months and accordingly, she filed an application on 01.11.08 requesting to pay the policy amount of Rs. 1,00,000/-, but all in vain.  The OP No. 1 has not repudiated her claim till now.  So having no other alternative she has filed the complaint praying for the reliefs as stated in the petition of the complaint.

The OP No. 1, National Insurance Co. Ltd. has contested this case by filing a written version, inter alia, stating that the case is not maintainable in its present form and the same is barred by law of limitation.  It is his specific contention that the Divisional Office III, Kolkata issued an insurance policy against  Ijajul Sk. which is valid up to 22.09.2013, but his specific contention is that he did not receive any intimation regarding the death of the complainant's son nor any claim application along with requisite documents were filed before him in due time.  So no question of deficiency in service on the part of this OP does arise and this complainant has no cause of action to file this case against him.  Hence, it is 

Page 3 of 6

liable to be dismissed.

The OP No. 3 has filed a separate written version in this case, inter alia, stating that the son of the complainant, one Izazul Sk had an insurance policy with the OP No. 1 which is valid up to 22.09.2013 covering Rs. 1,00,000/-.  This complainant being the mother of the deceased is the nominee of the policy.  According to memorandum of understanding executed by and between the National Insurance Co. Ltd., Div.III and this OP No. 3, the National Insurance Co. Ltd. has the exclusive right and authority to entertain / process and settle the claim of the complainant.   This OP has no liability for settlement of the claim of the complainant.   He further submits that within one month from the sad demise of her son, the petitioner's husband expired in an accident on 29.01.03 at which the petitioner became seriously mentally depressed and could not lead her normal life until 31.07.09.  Due to this she could not submit documents to the Insurance Co. to substantiate her claim earlier.   However, she arranged to forward some essential documents to the Insurance Co. for doing the needful in this matter, but no positive action was taken on the part of the Insurance Co. to settle her claim.  It is the duty of the OP No. 1 to settle her claim and this OP has nothing to do in this matter.  So the complainant has no cause of action to file this case against him and hence, it is liable to be dismissed against him also.

 

POINTS  FOR  DECISION

 

Point No.1: Is the case barred by limitation?

Point No.2:         Has the complainant became able to prove her case? 

Point No.3:      Is the complainant entitled to get the reliefs as prayed for?

 

 

Page 4 of 6

DECISION  WITH  REASONS

 

All the points are taken up together for discussion as they are interrelated and for the sake of convenience. 

After a careful perusal of the petition of complaint along with the annexed documents and the written versions filed by the OPs, it is available on record that the complainant's son, one Izazul Sk purchased one insurance policy from the OP No. 1 covering the period from 23.09.01 to 22.09.2013 and the insured amount was Rs. 1,00,000/-.   The copy of the policy is marked as Annexure – 2 which speaks that the complainant being the mother of the deceased is the nominee of that policy.  Annexure – 1 is the death certificate of Izazul Sk which speaks that he died on 05.12.02.  Annexure – 6 is the copy of the FIR which speaks that on 05.12.02, the complainant's son Izazul Sk was  murdered.  Postmortem report also supports this.  There is no denial on the side of the OP regarding the death of Izazul Sk and regarding the complainant's nomination under the OP No. 1.  Complainant's specific case is that she submitted her claim before the OP No. 1 on 12.12.02, but to no effect.   In support of her contention no document is filed by this complainant that she submitted claim application before the OP No. 1 on that specific date.  Annexure – 3 shows that on 12.12.02 she submitted an application to the OP No. 1 through the OP No. 3, inter alia, stating that her son expired on 05.12.02 and being his heir she requested the OP No. 1 to send one claim form.   Again on 01.11.08 she submitted an application to the OP No. 1 through OP No. 3 vide Annexure – 5, inter alia, stating that her only son expired on 05.12.02 and she submitted an application before this OP No. 1 on 12.12.02, but to no effect.  So she requested the OP No. 1 to settle her claim.   This letter was duly sent by the OP No. 3 to the OP No. 1 which is available from a document filed by the OP No. 3.   Therefore, on a careful consideration of all the documents on record and after 

Page 5 of 6

hearing the arguments advanced by the ld. lawyers for the parties, we find that admittedly Izazul Sk had one insurance policy with the OP No. 1 covering Rs. 1,00,000/- and the policy was valid from 23.09.01 to 22.09.2013 and in that policy the present complainant was the nominee being the mother of the deceased.   It is also established that Izazul Sk died on 05.12.02.  From the documents, it is available that it is not proved that the complainant's letter addressed to the OP No. 1 on 12.12.02 was duly received by the OP No. 1, but at the same time it is established that the second letter (Annexure – 5) dtd. 01.11.08 was duly forwarded by the OP No. 3 and the same was received by the OP No. 1.   Thereafter, the OP No. 1 neither communicated to this complainant nor repudiated her claim till the filing of this case on 06.03.09.   The complainant did not file any document along with her letter for settlement of her claim.   Naturally, the OP insurance Co. could not settle her claim.   But the fact is that the complainant being the heir of the deceased, Izazul Sk is entitled to have assured amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- due to sudden demise of her son.   Due to some technical defect her case is not settled by the OP Insurance Co.

In view of the above discussions, our considered view is that the complainant is entitled to get the insured amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- from the OP No. 1 being the nominee of the insurance policy of her son, Izazul Sk.  Considering the nature of this case, we further hold that the complainant is not entitled to get any compensation  from the OP No. 1 & 2 as we don't find any deficiency in service on the part OPs in true sense.   We pass no order against the OP No. 3 as per MOU this OP has no authority to settle the claim of the complainant nor to pay any compensation.  Ld. lawyer by the OP No. 1 & 2 has also submitted at the time of arguments that the claim of the complainant is to be settled by the OP No. 1 & 2.

In the written version, OP No. 1 & 2 raised the point that the case is not maintainable as it is barred by limitation.   The incident of  death of insured person was held on 05.12.02 and the present case was filed on 06.03.09.   Regarding this 

Page 6 of 6

delay it is the categorical assertion of the complainant that within one month from the death of her son her husband died in an accident due to which she was mentally depressed and even could not lead her normal life.   She was under the treatment of a doctor for a long time who issued a fit certificate on 31.07.08 in her favour as that medical certificate is Annexure – 4.  It was issued by the Dr. Debasish Bannerjee (Psychiatrist) and in the certificate it is stated categorically that the complainant Aleya Bewa was under his treatment from 04.02.03 to 31.07.08 as she was suffering from major depression.  Considering this medical certificate and after hearing the ld. lawyers for the parties, we also hold that the case is not barred by limitation as the ground for condonation of delay is sufficient.  Ld. lawyers for the OPs have not pressed this point at the time of argument also.   So, the complainant has become able to prove her case and she is entitled to get Rs. 1,00,000/- as insured amount.    In result the case succeeds. 

Hence,

Ordered,

That the case, CC/09/14 be and the same is decreed on contest against the OPs.  The complainant is entitled to get Rs. 1,00,000/- + Rs. 5,000/- as litigation cost, i.e., in total Rs. 1,05,000/-.  The OP No. 1 & 2 are directed to pay Rs. 1,05,000/-  to this complainant within the period of one month since this date, failing which the complainant is entitled to get the interest upon the decretal dues @ 10 % per annum since this date till the date of realization of the full amount.  

Let a copy of this judgment be delivered to the parties free of cost.