DATE OF FILING : 20-11-2013.
DATE OF S/R : 12-12-2013.
DATE OF FINAL ORDER : 29-08-2014.
1. Nabiunnesa Sekh,
wife of late Mansur Rahaman,
2. Sk. Rahagir Islam,
son of late Mansur Rahaman,
3. Sk. Ruhuli Azam,
son of late Mansur Rahaman,
all are of village & p.O. Kusumgram, P.S. Monteswar,
District – Burdwan,
PIN – 713422.
4. Aahamed Samsunnesa,
wife of Anwaruddin Ahmed,
daughter of late Mansur Rahaman
of village – Goalpara, P.O. Nasaratpur,
P.S. Purbasthali, District – Burdwan.
5. Nurunnesa Bibi,
wife of Khandakar Jianur Rahim,
daughter of late Mansur Rahaman
of village Bhanpura, P.O. Srikrishnapur,
P.S. Nanur, District – Birbhum. ------------------------------------ COMPLAINANTS.
- Versus -
1. The New India Assurance Co. Ltd.,
registered and head office at 87, Mahatma Gandhi Road,
Fort, Mumbai – 400001.
2. The New India Assurance Co. Ltd.
Branch Office Madhusudan Apartment, 2nd floor,
P-18, Dobson Lane, District – Howrah,
PIN – 711101.
3. Golden T rust Financial Services,
16, R.N. Mukherjee Road,
Kolkata – 700001. -------------------------------------------------OPPOSITE PARTIES.
P R E S E N T
President : Shri T.K. Bhattacharya, M.A. LL.B. WBHJS.
Member : Shri P.K. Chatterjee.
Member : Smt. Jhumki Saha.
F I N A L O R D E R
1. The instant case was filed by complainants U/S 12 of the C.P. Act, 1986 wherein the complainants have prayed for direction upon the o.p. nos. 1 & 2 to pay the assured sum of Rs. 50,000/- against the policy no. 512200/47/00/6100032199 as the policy holder died in a road accident within the policy cover period.
2. The o.p. nos. 1 & 2 in the written version contended interalia that in view of the latest position of law the complainants are not entitled to the sum assured.
3. The o.p. no. 3 in their written version in admitting the complaint stated that the deceased policy holder was their agent.
4. Upon pleadings of both parties two points arose for determination :
i) Is there any deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps. ?
ii) Whether the complainants are entitled to get any relief as prayed for ?
DECISION WITH REASONS :
5. Both the points are taken up together for consideration. The death of the policy
holder is admitted. The MACC Case No. 290/2010 was contested and the award was satisfied. No appeal was preferred. On scrutiny of the enclosures it is clear that the policy bearing no. 512200/47/00/6100032199 was issued by the o.p. nos. 1 & 2. The sum assured was Rs. 50,000/- for the period from 13-08-2002 to 14-08-2015. The policy holder met with a fatal road accident on 14-12-2009 i.e., within the coverage period. The claim was submitted on 13-04-2010 and is still pending for inaction on the o.ps.
6. The policy holder Mansur Rahaman was an agent as is revealed from the Annexure –
6. Naturally the claim of the complainant is bonafide. The o.ps. issued the certificate on being satisfied with the status of the policy holder and as such the o.p. nos. 1 & 2 cannot have any escape from the rigours of law. This is a fit case where the prayer of the complainants shall be allowed. Both the points are accordingly disposed of.
Hence,
O R D E R E D
That the C. C. Case No. 395 of 2013 ( HDF 395 of 2013 ) be and the same is allowed on contest with costs as against the O.P. nos. 1 & 2 and dismissed without costs as against the o.p. no. 3.
The O.P. nos. 1 & 2 be directed to release the assured sum of Rs. 50,000/- against the policy no. 512200/47/6100032199 dated 13-08-2002 in favour of the complainants within 30 days from the date of this order.
The o.p. nos. 1 & 2 be further directed to pay Rs. 10,000/- to the complainant as compensation for causing mental pain and prolonged harassment.
The o.p. nos. 1 & 2 do further pay a sum of Rs. 5,000/- as litigation costs to the complainants.
The complainants are at liberty to put the decree into execution after expiry of the appeal period.
Supply the copies of the order to the parties, as per rule.
DICTATED & CORRECTED
BY ME.
( T.K. Bhattacharya )
President, C.D.R.F.,Howrah.
