State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Bajaj Allianz Gen. Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Addl. Secretary Cseb on 23 March, 2011
CHHATTISGARH STATE
CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
PANDRI, RAIPUR (C.G)
Appeal No.636/2010
Instituted on : 21/10/2010
Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Ltd.,
Through : Branch Manager,
Shivmohan Bhawan, Pandri,
Raipur (C.G) ... Appellant
Vs.
Additional Secretary,
Chhattisgarh State Power Holding Company Ltd.
Head Office : Danganiya,
Raipur (C.G) ... Respondent
PRESENT :
HON'BLE JUSTICE SHRI S.C. VYAS, PRESIDENT
HON'BLE SMT. VEENA MISRA, MEMBER
HON'BLE SHRI V.K. PATIL, MEMBER
COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES :
Shri Manoj Prasad, for appellant.
Shri R.K. Bhawnani, for respondent.
ORDER (ORAL)
DATED : 23 /03/2011 PER :- HON'BLE JUSTICE SHRI S.C. VYAS, PRESIDENT This appeal is directed against the order dated 15/09/2010 of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Raipur (C.G) (hereinafter called "District Forum" for short) in Complaint Case No.27/2008, whereby the complaint of the respondent herein, has been allowed against the appellant Insurance Company and the appellant has been directed to pay a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- on account of accidental death of Mr. Vasudev Waghmare, who was insured under // 2 // a Group Janta Personal Accident Policy, obtained by the respondent Company from the appellant Insurance Company, in respect of it's employees for a period between 10/09/2005 to 09/09/2006.
2. In nutshell, the facts of the case are that deceased Mr. Vasudev Waghmare, was an employee of the respondent Chhattisgarh State Power Holding Company Limited and under Group Janta Personal Accident Policy, along with other employees of the respondent Company, he was also insured by the appellant Insurance Company against the accidental death. As per case of the respondent, Mr. Vasudev Waghmare died on 20/12/2005. While crossing a railway track, he was hit by a goods train and sustained injuries and died during treatment. The respondent Company paid a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- to the Legal Representatives of the deceased Mr. Vasudev Waghmare and then it filed a complaint before the District Forum for the sum assured against the appellant Insurance Company.
3. The appellant Company contested the complaint of the complainant on the ground that the complainant was not competent to file complaint, unless Legal Representatives of Mr. Vasudev Waghmare, are made party in the complaint case. It was also the defence of the Insurance Company before the District Forum that death of Mr. Vasudev Baghmare was not accidental, but was suicidal and, therefore, under the terms of the insurance policy, the Insurance // 3 // Company, is not liable to pay any amount to the respondent/complainant.
4. Learned District Forum turn down the defences taken by the appellant Insurance Company and directed it to pay an amount of Rs.4,00,000/- to the respondent/complainant, along with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of complaint and also an amount of Rs.5,000/- as compensation for mental agony, as well as a sum of Rs.1,000/- as cost of litigation.
5. After having heard the arguments advanced by both parties and perusing record of the District Forum, we do not find much substance in this appeal.
6. Superintendent of Police (Railway), Raipur conducted an inquiry regarding the cause of death of deceased Mr. Vasudev Waghmare. The Report of the aforesaid Officer, is available on record of the District Forum. In this Report, it was concluded by the Police in the inquiry conducted under Section 174 of the CrPC in the matter of suspicious death of Mr. Vasudev Waghmare that he sustained injuries while crossing the railway track, on account of dash by a goods train resulting in severe injuries to his hands, legs and other parts of the body and excessive bleeding, he was brought to the hospital and died during treatment. Report of Autopsy Surgeon, is // 4 // also available on record of the District Forum and it also says that deceased Vasudev Waghmare sustained many injuries on almost all parts of his body including crush injuries, amputation of Rt. upper arm, fractures etc. In the Postmortem Report, the Autopsy Surgeon noted all the aforesaid injuries. Thus, on the basis of these reports, it can very well be said that mode of death of Mr. Vasudev Waghmare was accidental.
7. Counsel for the appellant submitted that driver of the goods train, in his statement given to the Investigator of the Insurance Company stated that deceased came deliberately to the railway track and was standing in the middle of the railway track while goods train was coming over there. In this regard, he has drawn our attention towards the Report of the Investigator of the Insurance Company. But, we find that no affidavit of any such driver was tendered before the District Forum, nor he was examined by any other authority. The Investigator of the Insurance Company was not legally authorized to record statement of any person, which can be used in any Court of Law. Such statement can only be used in the internal proceedings of the Insurance Company, but, it can not be used as evidence to prove any particular fact unless an affidavit of such Investigator is filed. Therefore, unless the driver of the goods train is examined by way of // 5 // filing his affidavit or by any other way, this contention is not acceptable.
8. We find that Report of the Inquiry conducted by the Police under Section 174 of CrPC, is dependable and is convincing. On the basis of such Report, it is proved that deceased Vasudev Waghmare died an accidental death , therefore, the Insurance Company was liable to pay sum assured to the respondent on account of accidental death of the insured. Thus, the District Forum, has not committed any error in passing award in favour of the respondent/complainant.
9. So far as, objection of the Insurance Company regarding competency of the complainant/respondent to file complaint before the District Forum is concerned, we find that Group Janta Personal Accident Policy was obtained by the respondent by paying premium to the Insurance Company for the benefit of it's all employees. Thus, the respondent is also consumer of the appellant Company, who obtained it's services on payment of premium for the insurance purpose and so, it is competent to file complaint even on behalf of it's employees. When the sum assured has already been paid by the respondent Company to the Legal Heirs of the Mr.Vasudev Waghmare, then the complaint filed by the employer, is very well maintainable.
// 6 //
10. In view of the aforesaid, we do not find any substance in this appeal, the same is hereby dismissed. No order as to cost of this appeal.
(Justice S.C.Vyas) (Smt. Veena Misra) (V.K. Patil)
President Member Member
/03/2011 /03/2011 /03/2011