SRI. JIMMY KORAH (PRESIDENT)
Filed on 17.04.2009
Complainant is the wife of Late Mr.C.P.Job. He was the card holder of M/S. Dollars India Ltd. Bearing No.190265. The New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Chennai issued 'Master Janatha Personal Accident Policy' to all 'Dollars India Card' holders. Naturally, the complainant's husband also became the holder of the said policy bearing No. 47 710600 00846 which is valid from 10th May 1999 to 9th May 2009. The sum assured was Rs.2,00,000/-(Rupees two lakhs only). The complainant was the nominee of the said policy. In the meantime, the husband of the complainant met with a road accident on 15th December 2007 and succumbed to the same. Consequently, the complainant, wife of the deceased preferred the accident benefit claim with the opposite party. The opposite party repudiated the same vide letter dated 28th April 2008 on the ground amongst others that the opposite party, in 2003 had cancelled the policies issued to the card holders of M/s. Dollars India. The card of Dollars India was purchased solely for the reason of the said policy. The opposite party is liable to pay the complainant the assured sum of the policy. There is deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party. Aggrieved by this, the complainant has approached this Forum with the present complaint.
2. Notice sent. The opposite party turned up and filed version. The opposite party contended that this Forum has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the present complaint. The opposite party, at the instance of its regional office had cancelled all the policies with effect from 1st May 2003. To this effect, it had sent notices to the insured. As per the condition, the opposite party has every right to cancel the policy already issued. The pro-rate premium was sent to the card holders to their last known addresses. They received the same. As such, there was no policy coverage at the time of accidental death of the insured in the complaint in hand. Therefore, no deficiency of service exists. The complaint is unwarranted. The opposite party is not liable to pay the alleged insurance amount. The complaint is only to be dismissed with cost and compensatory cost to the opposite party.
3. The complainant evidence consists of the oral testimony of the complainant as PW1 and Exbts. Al to A8 were marked. Exbt Al is the copy of the policy receipt, A2 & A2 (a) are the copy of FIR & FIS as to the accident, A3 is the copy of the scene Mahazor, A4 is the copy of the post-mortem certificate, A5 is the copy of the legal heir certificate, A6 is the copy of the death certificate, A7 is the copy of the claim application, A8 is the letter of repudiation by the opposite party . On the side of the opposite party, its Manager, Alappuzha was examined as RWl and the documents Exbts. Bl and B1(a) were marked. Exbts Bl and B1(a) are the copy of the document canceling the policy and statement of refund of the premium respectively.
4. Bearing in mind the contentions of both the parties, the questions arise for consideration are:-
(a) Whether the complainant is a consumer within the meaning of the Consumer
Protection Act?
(b) Whether this Forum has jurisdictional right to entertain the present complaint?
(c) Whether the policy was in force at the time of the accident?
(d) Is the complainant entitled to the relief sought for?
5. Questions (a) & (b):- For the sake of convenience, both the issues are considered together. Concededly, the complainant's husband was the card holder of MIS. Dollars India Ltd. The opposite party issued 'Master Janatha Personal Accident Policy'. Complainant was the nominee in the said policy. The policy was in force for the next ten years from the date of its issuance. Consequent to a road accident he died on 15th December 2007. Needless to say the complainant naturally becomes the consumer of the opposite party.
6. . . The learned counsel for the opposite party vehemently argued that this Forum lacks jurisdiction to entertain the present complaint. It is submitted that the policy was issued and the claim for it was repudiated in Chennai, and hence compliant if any ought to have been filed at Chennai. On the other hand the complainant asserts that the said policy was executed in the residence of the complainant which is well within the Jurisdiction of this Forum. We regret, we are unable to agree with the contention of the learned counsel for the opposite party. The salutary principle of interpretation of statutes advantageously suggests that a slight departure from the plain and literal reading of a section of the Act is sometimes necessary, if the same is for the purpose of avoiding a consequent absurdity. It is not in dispute that, if the cause of action or a portion of it arises in Alappuzha, the District Forum in Alappuzha will have the jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. The issue whether the cause of action arose in Alappuzha is a question of facts and of law. It is a well settled law that the expression 'cause of action' means a bundle of facts that gives rise to a right or liability. The facts which the complainant set out to give rise to a cause of action would confer territorial jurisdiction on the District forum Alappuzha only if the facts so pleaded in the complaint have direct nexus with the dispute for which the relief is sought.
7. In the present case admittedly the complainant's husband was the subscriber of the policy. The complainant alleges deficiency of service by the opposite party. The facts allegedly set out by the complainant definitely lead to a cause of action in favor of the complainant. In view of this, even if the said policy was either executed or repudiated in Chennai or in Alappuzha, obviously the cause of action so alleged or a portion of it evidently arose in Alappuzha. As we have already observed, since the cause of action so pleaded has direct nexus with the dispute for which the relief is sought, the District Forum in Alappuzha has jurisdiction to entertain and adjudicate the present complaint.
8. Questions (c) & (d):- The opposite party contended that consequent to a direction from its 'Regional Office' all the policy issued to the card holders of 'Dollars India was cancelled with effect from 2003. Notice was served to all to this effect. As per the terms and condition of the policy, the opposite party has every right to cancel the policy any time at its will. The pro-rate premium concerned was paid back to all such policy holders. As such there was no policy in force at the time of the accidental death of the insured, the opposite party asserts. The opposite party produced Bl & Bl(a), photo copy of the declaration cancelling the policy of the 'Dollars India card holders'. Needless to say it lacks evidentiary value. Even if it is assumed for argument sake, that it has evidentiary value, the same is not specific as to the material policy in the present case. Seemingly no evidence is adduced to prove the opposite parties right to cancel the already executed policy. We went through the materials placed on record. We meticulously perused the oral testimony and all the produced documents. Apparently, no evidence worth the name was led by the opposite party to establish even anyone of its contentions. A bare statement or suggestion without something more to substantiate the same will not take the place of proof. Less said better as to the evidence led by the opposite party. We must observe that none of the contentions, the opposite party took out merit acceptance. The complainant is entitled to the amount insured. Definitely, there is deficiency of service. The opposite party is liable to pay compensation.
In the result, the opposite party is directed to pay the complainant the assured sum of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees two lakhs only) with interest @ 9% from the date of the claim application viz.31st January 2008 till its realization. The opposite party is also directed to pay compensation of Rs.15000/-(Rupees fifteen thousand only) to the complainant. There is no order on costs.
Complaint allowed.
Pronounced in open Forum on this the 30th day of July, 2010.
Sd/- Sri. Jimmy Korah:
Sd/- Sri. K. Anirudhan:
Sd/- Smt.N.Shajitha Beevi:
Appendix:-
Evidence of the complainant:-
PW1 - Saramma M.G. (Sara Job) (Witness)
Ext.A1 - Copy of the policy receipt
Ext.A2 & A2(a) - Copy of FIR & FIX as to the accident
Ext.A3 - Copy of the Scene Mahazor
Ext.A4 - Copy of the Post mortem Certificate
Ext.A5 - Copy of the legal heir certificate
Ext.A6 - Copy of the death certificate
Ext.A7 - Copy of the claim application
Ext.A8 - Letter of repudiation by the opposite party
Evidence of the opposite party:-
RW1 - Saraswathy Balachandran (Witness)
Ext.B1 & B1(a) - Copy of the document canceling the policy and statement of refund of the premium respectively
// True Copy //
By Order
Senior Superintendent
To
Complainant/Opposite party/S.F.
Typed by:-pr/-
Compared by:-
