Smt. Shyamali Acharya,

wife of late Ashim Kumar Acharya,

43/2/1, Bidyayatan Sarani, P.O. Alambazar, P.S. Baranagar,

Kolkata – 700035. ---------------------------------------------------------- COMPLAINANT.

-          Versus   -

1.      The New India Assurance Company Ltd.,

Howrah Branch, Unit No. 512200, Madhusudan Apartment,

P-18, Dobson Lane ( 2^nd floor ), P.S. Golabari,

District -  Howrah,

Pin  – 711101.

2.      The Divisional Manager,

representing the New India Assurance Company Limited,

Howrah Branch, Unit No. 512200, Madhusudan Apartment,

P-18, Dobson Lane ( 2^nd floor ), P.S.  Golabari,

Howrah – 711101.

3.      Golden Trust Financial Services,

having its registered office at

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 complainant U/S 12 of the C.P. Act, 1986

wherein the complainant Smt. Shyamali Acharya has  prayed for direction upon the o.p. nos. 1 & 2 to pay the insured sum of Rs. 1 lac  together with interest thereto and to pay compensation of Rs. 30,000/- for causing unnecessary harassment as the O.P. new India Assurance Company did not disburse the claim amount on fragile reason.   

2.                  The o.p. nos. 1 & 2  in their  written statement contended  interalia that there is

no whisper as to the relationship of the deceased husband with G.T.F.S.; that it is not denied that the husband of the complainant was not an employee of Kolkata Municipal Corporation ; that the G.T.F.S. in violation of the terms and conditions of MOU extended the benefit of insurance coverage to the husband of the complainant. So the complaint should  be  dismissed.

   3.      The O.P. no. 3 G.T.F.S. in their written version stated that there was no negligence or deficiency on their part; that the O.P. nos. 1 & 2 issued the certificate after proper scrutiny; that the O.P. nos. 1 & 2 did not act properly in repudiating the claim.

 4.        Upon pleadings of  parties two points arose for determination :

i)          Is there any deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps.  ?

ii)                  Whether the complainant is  entitled to get any relief as prayed for ? 

DECISION  WITH   REASONS      :

5.      Both the points are  taken up together for consideration. Admittedly Asim

Acharya since deceased, the husband of the complainant secured the coverage under a policy of Group Janata Personal Accident Insurance Policy from O.P. nos. 1 & 2 to the tune of Rs. 1 lac and the complainant was made a nominee of the policy. The policy holder died in a car accident which is established from Annexures  A/2 and A/4. The complainant submitted the claim form along with all the papers and documents asked by O.P. no. 2. Annexure A/8 reflects that Asim Naskar was a field worker by virtue of which he was granted JPA insurance coverage by the O.P. nos. 1 & 2. Be it noted that there was no eligibility criteria fixed by the New India Assurance Company Ltd. for granting insurance coverage. Therefore, it is immaterial if Asim Kr. Acharya since deceased was an employee of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation. Enclosure A-1 unerringly reflects that the certificate was issued by the O.P. nos. 1 & 2   after proper scrutiny. Once the certificate was issued the O.P. nos. 1 & 2 cannot have any way out than to release the claim amount together with the interest in favour of the complainant.

      Therefore, we are of the view that this is a fit case where the prayer of the complainant shall  be  allowed. Both the points are accordingly disposed of.  

      Hence,

O     R     D      E      R      E        D

      That the C. C. Case No. 102 of 2012 ( HDF 102 of 2012 )  be  and the same is allowed on contest with  costs  against  the O.P.  nos. 1 & 2 and dismissed without cost against the O.P. no. 3.

      The O.P.  nos. 1 & 2 be directed to  release the claim amount together with the interest @ 9%  since 18-11-2011 till full satisfaction to the complainant.

      No order as to compensation.

      The complainant is  also entitled to a litigation cost of Rs. 5,000/- from the O.P. nos. 1 & 2.

      The complainant is 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.