State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
N. Bhagirathi Dora vs The Branch Manager,The New India ... on 29 July, 2008
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION:ORISSA:CUTTACK
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION:ORISSA: CUTTACK
C.D. CASE NO.85 OF 2000
N.
Bhagirathi Dora,
S/o.
N. Pandu Dora,
Village/P.O-
Chikiripada Sadar,
Dist-
Ganjam.
Complainant.
-Versus-
1. The
Branch Manager,
The New India Assurance Co. Ltd.,
Tota Beni Square,
Berhampur-780 005.
2. Divisional
Manager,
New India Assurance Co. Ltd.,
Berhampur Division,
At/P.O-
Berhampur,
Dist-
Ganjam.
3. Regional
Manager,
New India Assurance Co. Ltd.,
Regional
Office, 4th Floor,
Alok
Bharati Tower,
Sahid Nagar, Bhubaneswar.
Opposite Parties.
For the Complainant : M/s.L. Samantaray & Assoc.
For the Opp.Parties : M/s.
P.K. Panda & Assoc.
P
R E S E N T :
THE HONBLE SMT. BASANTI DEVI,
MEMBER
A N D
SHRI
SUBASH MAHTAB, MEMBER.
O R D E R
DATE: - 29TH JULY, 2008.
N. Bhagirathi Dora claiming himself as the husband and nominee of the deceased insured Sasmita Patra (Subasini), has filed this case to direct opposite parties to pay him the Janata Personal Accident Insurance Policy, in short, the J.P.A.I. policy amount rupees 10 lakhs with interest from 01.07.1998 up-to-date in total rupees 15 lakhs along with compensation and cost of litigation.
2. Facts of the complainants case in brief are that, complainants wife Sasmita patra took JPAI policy bearing No.4755060108773 for assured sum of rupees 10 lakhs for a period of fifteen years viz. from 20.05.1998 to 2013 from the New India Assurance Co. Ltd. which is represented by the opposite parties in this case. While Sasmita was travelling in a bus from Berhampur to Rayagada on 01.07.1998 at Adava, she had got down from the bus to attend call of nature. But while returning to bus after attending call of nature, a jeep running rashly and negligently dashed against her and insured succumbed to injuries in the accident at the spot. Complainant, who was present at the spot immediately, on that date, informed the police of Adava lodging F.I.R. Dead body of Sasmita was carried to the hospital where postmortem was also conducted. Complainant intimated about this to the opposite parties on 14.07.1998 requesting them to indemnify the claim as per the aforesaid policy.
As Sasmita died sustaining injuries in the accident during the policy period, the complainant is entitled to receive the amount under said policy. Complainant had supplied all the relevant document viz. the copy of F.I.R., copies of statements recorded under Sections 161 and 162 Cr.P.C., report of M.V.I., Dead body challan report, Seizure list, Zimanama and postmortem report as per letter dated 29.04.1999 to the Investigating Officer Sri Prafulla Chandra Patnaik appointed by the opposite parties who had received the same on 30.04.1999. He also submitted again the copies of aforesaid documents to opposite party No.1 on 27.12.1999 as was advised. In spite of all steps taken by him, opposite parties did not settle the claim and eight months passed away in the meantime.
Therefore, alleging deficiency in service against all the opposite parties, complainant has filed this case for the relief mentioned above.
3. As per their written version, not only opposite parties have challenged the maintainability, cause of action, absence of deficiency in service to the complainant by them but also, they have challenged the locustandi of complainant N. Bhagirathi Dora in making insurance claim on the strength of Janata Personal Accident Insurance Policy of Sasmita Patra (Subasini) (Annexure-1).
4. The specific case of the opposite parties as per their written version in brief, is that Sasmita Patra (Subasini) wife of Sri Bhagirathi Dora has entered into Janata Personal Accident Insurance Policy, in short, J.P.A.I. policy bearing No.4755060108773 for assured sum of rupees 10 lakhs on 20.05.1998 for fifteen years upto 19.05.2013 with the New India Assurance Company Limited, in short, Insurance Company (as per Annexure-1). Her husband Sri Bhagirathi Dora is also the nominee. But, the present complainant N. Bhagirathi Dora is not the husband and nominee of said Sasmita Patra. N. Bhagirathi Dora making impersonation has filed the C.D. Case to grab away the policy amount from the Insurance Company. According to the opposite parties, it is revealed during investigation made by them that there is no physical existence of a person dead or alive namely Sasmita Patra. The present complainant by his self stayed husband / nominee of Sasmita Patra has made a false claim. His marriage to any Sasmita Patra is not proved and his own father denies about his marriage to Sasmita Patra and the local Sarpanch of Palsara Gram Panchayat denied him a married person (Annexures-B and C respectively). According to them, one unfortunate lady Raisia Barik has been sacrificed in a planned manner being an outcome of conspiracy by N. Bhagirathi Dora and the so-called jeep driver Bhagaban Sahoo who is also the independent witness in the aforesaid policy and on antisocial friend of N. Bhagirathi Dora. It is a preplanned manner of destitute lady Raisia Barik to fulfill their object to grab policy amount by manipulating and fabricating documents with unholy alliance of police and doctor showing that Sasmita Patra succumbed to injury in jeep accident. Bhagaban Sahoo who has been booked for criminal charges of kidnapping and committing rape to Raisia Barik has dashed his own jeep which is an outcome of conspiracy with N. Bhagirathi Dora. It is also highly improbable that when a Sulav Souchalaya was existing at a distance of thirty metres from Adava Bus stand, N. Bhagirathi Dora with his wife at 11 p.m. would cover a distance of 2 k.m. which is an isolated jungle area, from Adava Bus stand to attend the call of nature. No motor accident claim has been filed for compensation. F.I.R. is lodged in an unexplained delay. Death registration has also been made by N. Bhagirathi Dora in considerable delay which raised suspicion about truth of insurance claim. According to them, the entire scenario is not just vicious and clinical, but also spine chilling and Cannibal. In these circumstances, the claim, according to them have been rightly repudiated treating the claim as false, fictitious, malicious and illegal.
5. We have heard the learned counsels from both sides and perused all the documents filed by both the parties very carefully.
6. The most important