State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Manager Golden Multi Service Club Ltd. vs Nirmal Pal & Other on 4 July, 2013
CHHATTISGARH STATE
CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
PANDRI, RAIPUR (C.G)
Appeal No.FA/13/116
Instituted on : 07.02.2013
Manager, Golden Multi Service Club Limited,
Address : Railway Station, Near Gurudwara,
Arihant Complex, Third Floor,
Post and District - Raipur (C.G.) ... Appellant
Vs.
(1) Nirmal Pal, S/o Late Premlal Pal,
(2) Smt. Keja Bai, W/o Shri Nirmal Pal,
Both R/o : Village - Joratarai, Post - Kusmi Atariya,
Tahsil - Khairagarh, District Rajnandgaon (C.G.)
(3) National Insurance Company Limited,
Divisional Office No.3, Shakespeare Sarini, 6th Floor,
Kolkata - 700 017 (West Bengal). ... Respondents
Appeal No.FA/13/159
Instituted on : 28.02.2013
National Insurance Company Limited,
Division Office No.3, Shakespeare Sarini, 6th Floor,
Kolkata - 700017 (West Bengal),
Through : It's Divisional Manager, Divisional Office,
National Insurance Company Limited, Second Floor,
Mobin Mahal, G.E. Road, Raipur,
Tahsil & District Raipur 492001 (Chhatisgarh) ... Appellant
Vs.
(1) Nirmal Pal, S/o Late Premlal Pal,
(2) Smt. Keja Bai, W/o Shri Nirmal Pal,
Both R/o : Village - Joratarai, Post - Kusmi Atariya,
Tahsil - Khairagarh, District Rajnandgaon (C.G.)
// 2 //
(3) Manager, Golden Multi Service Club Limited,
Third Floor, Arihant Complex,
Near Gurudwara, Station Road,
Raipur (Chhattisgarh) ... Respondents
PRESENT :
HON'BLE SMT. VEENA MISRA, PRESIDING MEMBER
HON'BLE SHRI V.K. PATIL, MEMBER
HON'BLE MISS HEENA THAKKAR, MEMBER
COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES IN BOTH THE APPEALS :
Shri Amit Patel, for the complainants, Shri Nirmal Pal & Smt. Keja Bai.
Shri P.K. Paul, for O.P.No.1, Manager, Golden Multi Service Club
Limited.
Shri V.K. Bajpai, for O.P.No.2, National Insurance Company Limited.
ORDER
DATED : 04/07/2013 PER :- HON'BLE SMT. VEENA MISRA, PRESIDING MEMBER This order will govern disposal of Appeal Nos. FA/13/116 and FA/13/159, which have been preferred by O.P. No.1 & 2 respectively against order passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rajnandgaon (C.G.) (hereinafter called "District Forum" for short), on 08.01.2013 in Complaint Case No.75/2012, whereby the complaint of the complainants, was partly allowed. In this order the parties will be referred to as complainants and opposite parties for the sake of clarity and in order to avoid confusion. The original of this order be retained in the file of Appeal No. FA/13/116 and its copy be placed in the file of Appeal No. FA/13/159.
2 Brief facts necessary for disposal of these appeals are : that son of the complainants had obtained a Group Insurance Policy for // 3 // Rs.1,00,000/- bearing Policy No.100300/42/04/8200012 for the period from 23.07.2004 to 22.07.2014 and the name of complainant no.1 was mentioned in the policy as nominee. During subsistence of the insurance, insured died in a road accident on 08.09.2007 while he was coming to Village Joratarai on his Hero Honda motorcycle No.C.G.08-F-8955 and near Jaika Automobiles, his bike was dashed by a dumper resulting into death of the insured. Police was duly informed. Postmortem of the body was done. As per averment of the complaint, the complainants were not aware that their son had obtained any such policy. They came to know about the policy in the month of July, 2011, when it was recovered from old papers. After coming to know of the policy, the complainant no.1 contacted the OPs and made an application in writing on 28.07.2011 claiming the sum assured. The OPs demanded certain documents, which were provided to them, but as the complainants received no intimation regarding settlement of their claim, they served legal notice on 25.02.2012 through their counsel and in response thereof they received a letter dated 30.05.2012 wherein it was mentioned that the claim was preferred after four years of the incident hence the claim amount cannot be paid. Hence complainants approached District Forum for seeking proper Redressal alleging deficiency in service on part of the OPs.
// 4 //
3. O.P.No.1 did not file written version within the stipulated period hence its right to file written version was closed.
4. O.P.No.2 admitted the fact of issuance of policy in favour of the son of the complainants and also that the complainant no.1 was nominee under the said policy. It was averred in the written version that the complaint was time barred. The insurer had informed the complainants vide letter dated 30.05.2012 that as claim was laid with the insurer after a long gap of four years, it was not payable. As per terms of the policy immediate intimation was required to be given and said condition was violated by the complainants, hence there was no liability of the insurer and no deficiency in service has been committed by it by repudiating the claim of the complainants.
5. District Forum had partly allowed the complaint and directed the OPs jointly and severally to pay a sum of Rs.75,000/- to the complainants together with Advocate's fees of Rs.1,000/- within a period of two months from the date of order failing which interest @ 9% p.a. was also payable from the date of order. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, both the OPs have come in appeal before us. O.P.No.1 has filed Appeal No. FA/13/116 whereas O.P.No.2 / insurer has filed Appeal No. FA/13/159.
// 5 //
6. Learned counsel for the O.P.No.1 (Appellant in Appeal No. FA/13/116) submitted that there was a contract between the insurer and the insured and the only work assigned to the present appellant (O.P.No.1) was to collect premium and to send it to the insurer and thereafter on issuance and receipt of policy, send it to the insured. There is no allegation in the complaint that there was any deficiency in such service by O.P.No.1. After receipt of premium, the same was forwarded to the insurer and on receipt of policy document it was sent to the insured. Learned counsel for O.P.No.1 further submitted that no licence has been issued in favour of O.P.No.1 by Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority (IRDA) for doing insurance business hence it cannot be held liable under the facts and circumstances of the case.
7. During course of arguments, learned counsel for O.P.No.1 relied on Golden Trust Financial Vs. Achchalal Shah and Anr. Revision Petition No.4451 of 2010, decided by Hon'ble National Commission on 04.05.2011 and The General Manager, Golden Trust Financial Services & Anr. Vs. Anil Kumar & Anr., Revision Peition No.4107 of 2008, decided by Hon'ble National Commission on 28.07.2010 and submitted that in these cases also Hon'ble National Commission has held that Golden Trust Financial Services cannot be held jointly and severally liable with the insurer. He prayed that the // 6 // impugned order holding O.P.No.1 jointly and severally liable with insurer, may be set aside.
8. Learned counsel for O.P.No.2 / insurer (appellant in Appeal No. FA/13/159) submitted that the District Forum has passed an erroneous order and failed to appreciate the fact that rules and conditions mentioned in the policy, are to be strictly complied with. He submitted that in the instant case, the complainants informed the insurer after period of four long years. Learned counsel for insurer submitted that the complainants kept FIR and Postmortem Report safely with them though in absence of policy the documents were of no use, but it is not clear as to why they did not keep the policy document properly. Learned counsel submitted that FIR and Postmortem Report were not useful after four years, still they were kept by the complainants. The order passed by the District Forum is against the principles of natural justice. He further submitted that the appeal preferred by the insurer be allowed by setting aside the impugned order.
9. Learned counsel for the complainants (respondent Nos.1 & 2 in both the appeals) submitted that the District Forum has properly appreciated the facts of the case and has passed correct order. The complainants are parents of the deceased insured. The insurance policy was with the insured and the complainants were not aware of // 7 // existence of any such policy. They could find the policy in old papers and after that they laid claim before the insurer. He prayed for dismissal of both the appeals and affirming the impugned order of the District Forum.
10. It is observed that the District Forum has allowed only Rs.75,000/- to be paid to the complainants, whereas the policy was for Rs.1,00,000/- simply because there was delay in giving intimation regarding the incident. It has been specifically stated in the complaint that the complainants were not aware of the existence of any such policy in favour of their deceased son. The condition of the parents of a young boy, who dies in an accident, cannot well be appreciated. They cannot be expected to lay claim immediately, especially when they are not aware of existence of any such policy. It appears that they came across the policy while searching some old papers and thereafter the claim was laid. The objection taken by the learned counsel for the insurer as to why the complainants kept the FIR and Postmortem Report properly but did not keep the insurance policy, does not appear to be proper because FIR and Postmortem Report were received by them after death of their son, whereas the insurance policy must have been in possession of the insured as has been specifically averred in the complaint that complainants were not aware of any // 8 // such policy. After they found the policy document, they took necessary steps.
11. In these circumstances, we are convinced that the District Forum has properly appreciated the facts and has returned a correct finding so far as liability of insurer is concerned. We believe that O.P.No.1 cannot be jointly held liable with the insurer. Hence the order passed by the District Forum deserves modification to that effect.
12. On the basis of observations made in foregoing paragraphs appeal No. FA/13/116 filed by O.P.No.1, is allowed. The other Appeal bearing No. FA/13/159 filed by O.P.No.2/insurer, being devoid of merits, is hereby dismissed. The order of the District Forum is modified to the effect that there shall be no joint and several liability and the insurer shall only be liable to pay the amount directed by the District Forum. Besides this the insurer shall also pay Rs.1,000/- to the complainant towards cost of appeal No. FA/13/159.
(Smt.Veena Misra) (V.K.Patil) (Ms. Heena Thakkar)
Presiding Member Member Member
/07/2013 /07/2013 /07/2013
// 9 //