State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Hiralal And Others vs Chairman Cum M.D., C.C.L. And Others on 10 September, 2008
JHARKHAND STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, RANCHI JHARKHAND STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, RANCHI FA no.63 of 2008 Against order dated 31.1.2008, passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Hazaribag, in Consumer Complaint no.53 of 2007. Hiralal and others - Appellants Vrs. Chairman cum M.D., C.C.L. and others - Respondents For Appellants : Mr.Ajay Kumar Singh, Advocate. For Respondents 1 to 3 : M/s A.K.Srivastatva and Badal Vishal, Advocates. For Respondent 4 : Mr. G.C.Jha, Advocate. Before: Justice Gurusharan Sharma- President Mrs. Kalyani Kar Roy- Member
And Mr.Satyendra Kumar Gupta-Member Judgment Justice Sharma: Complainants are appellants. District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Hazaribagh dismissed their Consumer Complaint no.53 of 2007 filed under provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 by impugned order dated 31.1.2008.
2. Admittedly Daso Mahto, late father of the complainants, was an employee of M/s Central Coalfields Ltd (for short C.C.L.) and was posted at Giddi A Colliery as M.F.H. A Group Accident Insurance Policy of Rupees Five lacs for the period from March 2003 to February 2004 was provided to him by the employer-C.C.L. with the Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. and premium of Rs.266.00 was deducted from his salary.
3. Unfortunately on 23.1.2004 while Daso Mahto was going to the house of his son-in-law, Suresh Mahto at Village Basadih, an unknown vehicle being driven rashly dashed him at NH-33 near village Manudih, as a result of which he sustained injuries and died.
4. On 14.2.2004, his son Hiralal submitted insurance claim alongwith required papers to the papers to Project Officer, Giddi A Colliery, but insurance amount was not paid. Consumer Complaint no.53 of 2007 was, therefore, filed on 30.5.2007 for direction to pay insurance amount of Rupees Five lacs with interest @ 12% per annum, damages for harassment, physical injury and mental agony, Rs.50,000.00 and litigation cost of Rs.10,000.00 to the complainants.
5. According to the opposite parties 1 to 3 Chairman cum M.D., C.C.L., Chief General Manager, Argada Area of C.C.L. and Project Officer, Giddi A Colliery of C.C.L., no doubt late Daso Mahto was employed as Mechanical Fitter in C.C.L., but he met with a road accident far away from Giddi A Colliery and he had not taken leave to go to his son-in-laws village, hence he died not out of and in course of his employment, while on duty in the colliery. Accordingly the complainants were not entitled to get any benefit under the Insurance Policy and the insurance amount cant be paid to them.
6. The Insurance Company pleaded that Daso Mahto died on 23.1.2004, whereas intimation of his death was given to them only on 13.5.2005 i.e. beyond three months of his accidental death, therefore, in terms of the Memorandum of Understanding duly executed between the C.C.L. and the Insurance Company such claim was neither admissible nor entertainable. Hence, that was returned on 17.5.2005 and the claim file was closed.
7. The District Forum found that complainants had not submitted their claim application and relevant documents to C.C.L. authorities within three months after the accidental death of Daso Mahto, as required under the M.O.U., the insurance company rightly repudiated the claim. There was no deficiency in service on part of the opposite parties and the complainant was not entitled to get any relief in the complaint. Accordingly, the complaint was dismissed.
8. A perusal of the copy of Memorandum of Understanding between C.C.L. and the Oriental Insurance Company reveals that a Certificate was required to be issued by the C.C.L. in case of death or disbursement, due to accidents arising out of or in course of employment, in place of F.I.R.
9. In the facts and circumstances of the case, in our opinion, the most important question, which goes into the very root of the claim was whether the death of Daso Mahto in a road accident was covered under the Group Personal Accident Policy taken by the C.C.L. for its employees. The C.C.L. in its written statement pleaded that since Daso Mahto died not out of or in course of his employment, while on duty, hence the complainant was not entitled to get the benefits of the Insurance Policy. Such accidental death of the employee was not covered under the policy. The Counsel for the appellant was not able to convince us that even if the accidental death of the employee took place far away from the colliery, when he was going to attend one of his relatives for his private purpose not concerned with his employment and/or part of his duty, was covered under the policy. Unfortunately terms and conditions of policy was not produced before us by any of the parties.
10. Accordingly, we hold that accidental death of Daso Mahto was not covered under the policy and the complainant is, therefore, not entitled to be paid the insurance amount. In such situation, we need not go into the other term of Memorandum of Understanding that all claims shall be intimated within three months from the date of accident to the Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., Ranchi. Claims intimated after three months from the date of accident shall not be admitted. Hence we are not considering and deciding as to whether the claim made before the Insurance Company was barred by time.
11. In the result, the appeal is dismissed and consequently the complaint also stands dismissed. No costs.
The 10th September, 2008.
Ranchi.
Member Member President