West Bengal

Siliguri

82/S/2012

1) SRI SRI AROBINDA MOHONTO - Complainant(s)

Versus

THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD., - Opp.Party(s)

27 May 2015

ORDER

IN THE COURT OF THE LD. DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT S I L I G U R I.

 

CONSUMER CASE NO. : 82/S/2012.                DATED : 27.05.2015.       

 

BEFORE  PRESIDENT           : SRI BISWANATH DE,

                                                            President, D.C.D.R.F., Siliguri.

 

 

                      MEMBERS                  : SMT. PRATITI BHATTACHARYYA &

  SRI PABITRA MAJUMDAR.

 

COMPLAINANT             : SRI AROBINDA MOHONTO,

   S/O Late Sashadhar Mohonto,

   resident of Fulbari, West Dhantala,

   P.O.- Satalite Township, P.S.- Bhaktinagar,

                                         Dist.- Darjeeling. 

 

 

O.Ps.           1)                : THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD.,

  A Company registered under the Companies

  Act, 1956, having its registered office at 87,

  Mahatma Gandhi Road, Fort,

  Mumbai – 400 001, and having its Branch

  office at Malhotra Towers, Hill Cart Road,

  P.O. & P.S.- Pradhan Nagar,

  Dist.- Darjeeling.

 

2)                : THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD.,

    having its office at Siliguri Division – 512300, 

     Malhotra Towers, Hill Cart Road,

     P.O. & P.S.- Pradhan Nagar,

     Dist.- Darjeeling.

 

3)                : THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER,

    The New India Assurance Company Ltd.,

    having his office at Siliguri Division- 512300, 

    Malhotra Towers, Hill Cart Road,

    P.O. & P.S.-Pradhan Nagar, Dist.- Darjeeling.

 

4)                : THE BRANCH MANAGER,

    The New India Assurance Company Ltd.,

    having his office at Siliguri Division-512300, 

    Malhotra Towers, Hill Cart Road,

    P.O. & P.S.-Pradhan Nagar, Dist.- Darjeeling.

 

5)                : THE GOLDEN TRUST FINANCIAL SERVICES

  LTD.,

    a Company registered under the Companies

    Act, 1956, having its Branch office at Howrah

    Motors Building, opposite to Jalpaiguri Bus

    Stand, Bardhaman Road, P.O.& P.S.-Pradhan

    Nagar, Dist.- Darjeeling. (The OP No.5 is here     

    represented through and by its Manager).  

 

                                                                                                                                                                       

FOR THE COMPLAINANT      : Smt. Rima Sarkar, Advocate.

 

FOR THE OPs                         : Sampita Sanyal Sarkar, Advocate.

 

 

J U D G E M E N T

 

The complainant’s case succinctly summarized that Satyen Mohonto was insured under ‘Janata Personal Accident Insurance Policy’ for a sum of Rs.1,000,00/- by OP No.5 through OP Nos.1 to 4.  The policy was valid from

 

Contd……P/2

 

-:2:-

 

 

08.06.2002 to 07.06.2017.  On 05.01.2007 Satyen Mohonto faced an accident and died.  One U.D. Case No.05/2007 dated 05.01.2007 was instituted by Siliguri P.S.  Later on specific case No.08/2007 dated 06.01.2007 under Bhaktinagar P.S. was instituted under Section 170 and 304 (A)- of I.P.C.  That case was started at the behest of wife of deceased.  Afterwards the complainant has informed the fact of death of insured Satyen Mohonto to OP No.5 on 14.02.2007, and OP No.2 and 4 was also informed, and OPs started one claim No.4706/29000003.  On 17.04.2008 the complainant submitted original claim form along with Post Mortem Report, Death Certificate, and other connecting papers.  Those papers were received by OP No.5.  The said insurance policy was valid for 15 years and the insured died by an accident on 05.01.2007 i.e., the insured died during the continuance of the valid policies.  In spite of repeated letters, the OP No.5 and OP Nos.1 to 4 did not release the aforesaid amount in favour of deceased or complainant, and till date of filing this case no amount have been released by the OPs subsequently by the OP No.5.  the OPs have willfully failed and neglected to make payment of insured sum of Rs.1,000,00/- to the complainant.  Cause of action arose inter-alia on and from 05.01.2007 and from 14.01.2008 when letter was sent to the OP by complainant.  The instant case is filed under the provision of continuing cause of action.  Accordingly, necessary direction may be given to the OPs subsequently OP No.5 for making payment of the sum as laid down in para – 26- a, b, & c. 

The OP Nos. 1 to 4 has filed written version denying inter-alia all the material allegations raised by the complainant.  The plea taken by the OP Nos.1 to 4 is that there was Memorandum of Understanding between the OP Nos.1 to 4 in one side and OP No.5 in another side for Janata Personal Accident Insurance Policy.  The premium was collected and remitted to the insurance company by the Golden Trust periodically and computerized certificate in the name of the New India Assurance Company Ltd. was issued to each such persons by the Golden Trust Financial Services (para-11 of written version of OP Nos. 1 to 4).  To that effect a letter dated 07.05.1999 is annexed as annexure-‘B’.  The OP Nos.1 to 4 filed writ petition WP No.1144/1999 wherein interim order was passed.  The existing insurance policy has specific clause for termination being clause no.5.  The OP Nos.1 to 4 attributes the responsibility upon OP No.5 for making payment to the complainant.

 

Contd……P/3

-:3:-

 

 

OP No.5 has filed written version. 

The OP No.5 stated in para-4 that the deceased was a Field Worker of Golden Trust Financial Services who was extended with insurance coverage of Janata Personal Accident Insurance Policy No.512301/47/02/00201 by the New India Assurance Company Ltd. for capital sum of Rs.1,000,00/- for the period from 08.06.2002 to 07.06.2017 under the Golden Trust Financial Services Ltd.  The complainant is the nominee of deceased Satyen Mohonto.  In this way the New India Assurance Company Ltd. became the solely responsible for the policy.  The OP No.5 always acted with the help of OP No.1.  It is also case of the OP No.5 that Hon’ble Supreme Court has confirmed the relationship between the OP Nos.1 to 4 and OP No.5 in different cases showing responsibility on OP No.1.  Accordingly, OP No.5 prays that their name may kindly be struck down from the petition of complaint. 

The complainant has filed following documents :-

1.       Photocopy of Policy Certificate being No.512301/47/02/00201, dated 08.06.2002 issued by OP No.2, to and in favour of Satyen Mohonto.

2.       Photocopy of F.I.R. lodged by the wife of deceased Satyen Mohonto.

3.       Photocopy of Dead Body Challan of deceased Satyen Mohonto.

4.       Photocopy of Post Mortem Report of deceased Satyen Mohonto.

5.       Photocopy of Burning Certificate of deceased Satyen Mohonto.

6.       Photocopy of Death Certificate of deceased Satyen Mohonto.

7.       Photocopy of letter dated 17.04.2008 issued by the complainant.

8.       Photocopy of letter dated 09.05.2008.

9.       Photocopy of letter dated 14.11.2008 issued by the complainant.

 

OP Nos.1 to 4 have filed the following documents :-

1.       Copy of MOU dated 30.12.1998 for Janata Personal Accident Insurance Policy. 

2.       Letter dated 07.05.1999 issued by the OP/Insurance Company. 

3.       Order dated 06.07.1999 passed by the Hon’ble High Court, Calcutta.

4.       Janata Personal Accident Insurance Policy containing the terms, conditions, endorsement, limitations etc. 

 5.      Letters dated 01.08.2002 and 09.09.2002 issued by OP/Insurance Company to Golden Trust Financial Services Ltd. 

 

Complainant has filed evidence-in-chief.

OPs have filed evidence-in-chief. 

 

Contd……P/4

-:4:-

 

 

From the above documents, and evidence and documents namely Xerox copy of the insurance policy, FIR, Xerox copy of Burning Certificate, Certificate of Death, Claim Form, Xerox copy of Post Mortem Report, and other documents, the Insurance Policy of deceased is not disputed by the OP Nos.1, 2, 3 & 4.  But OP No.5 submits that OP No.4 is responsible as there was an agreement between the OP No.5 & the OP No.1 and OP No.1 issued Golden Trust Financial Services certificate in the name of Golden Trust Financial Services.  The Xerox copy of this policy is self speaking about the agreement an insurance whatsoever between the OP No.1 to 4 and OP No.5.  The certificate on the face of record should have been issued by the New India Assurance Company Ltd.     

The policy was issued on 08.06.2002.  The policy was valid from 08.06.2002 to 07.06.2017.  Sum assured is Rs.1,000,00/-.  The policy was issued in the name of Satyen Mohonto.  Satyen Mohonto died on 05.01.2007.  Dispute OP Nos.1 to 4 and OP No.5 may or may not occur but on the date of death of insured, this policy was valid and stood in the name of deceased Satyen Mohonto issued by the New India Assurance Company Ltd.  No denial and giving up responsibility to OP No.5 at the time of death is not tenable and acceptable to a very common man.  The complainant is the nominee of insurance holder.  So, the OP No.1 must discharge his responsibility upon the deceased, and now upon the complainant i.e., OP No.1 to 4 are responsible.  The complainant is entitled to get the full sum assured.

It is seen that the case was instituted on 07.08.2012, but the deceased died on 05.01.2007.  The date of death was communicated to the OP No.5 on 14.02.2007 and thereafter on 17.04.2008 the claim was filed before the OP No.4 & 5, along with other documents.  But the OPs did not release the fund in favour of the complainant and thereafter the complainant filed this case.  Moreover, the OP No.1 never denied that they did not issue any certificate on behalf of OP No.5. 

On the face of the certificate policy, it appears that OP No.1 issued the certificate on behalf of the OP No.5.  At the same time it appears that writ petition was filed in the Hon’ble High Court at Calcutta, wherein the Hon’ble High Court of Calcutta passed order in a writ petition WP No.1144/1999 dated 06.07.1999 declaring that OP No.5 had no authority to collect any premium from any one and the collection of any premium from any corner amounts to unfair trade practice.  It is argued before this Forum by placing some

 

Contd……P/5

-:5:-

 

 

judgments Annexure-A, B, C, wherein Hon’ble High Court has passed order restraining Golden Trust Financial Services from collection of any amount from anyone.  In this case in our hand, the premium was collected from the deceased 08.06.2002 i.e., much after the decision of the Hon’ble High Court in a writ petition.  The principles of law adopted in the writ petition depending on the facts have been taken in Ref. case A, B, & C.  This case is a similar fact of those cases, wherein insurance policy was taken from New India Assurance Company Ltd. through Golden Trust Financial Services. 

It is true that the victim died in a road accident.  He had a policy and the complainant was the nominee in that policy.  But the OP No.5 had no authority to collect any premium in the name of OP Nos.1 to 4. 

But the Hon’ble High Court prohibited the OP No.5 from collecting any amount or making any insurance as order has been passed in the writ petition WP No.1144/1999 dated 06.07.1999 by the Hon’ble High Court, Calcutta. 

Accordingly, on the date of issuing the insurance policy, the OP No.5 had no authority.  Moreover, there is no evidence to show that deceased acted within the accepted clause shown in the reflected order of the Hon’ble High Court.  Accordingly, the complainant is unable to prove the negligence or deficiency in service on the part of the OP Nos.1 to 4. 

The same principle had been adopted in the Annexure-A, B & C. 

Accordingly, the complainant is not entitled to get any benefit from the OPs. 

The complaint thus fails. 

Hence, it is

                    O R D E R E D 

that the Consumer Case No.82/S/2012 is dismissed on contest but without cost.

Let copies of this order be given to the parties free of cost.