State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
United India Insurance Co. vs M/S Kajima Dewoo J V, H E Project Chirkila on 23 September, 2016
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION UTTARAKHAND
DEHRADUN
FIRST APPEAL NO. 10 / 2009
1. United India Insurance Company Limited
through its Branch Manager
having one of its Branch Office at
Pithoragarh and Regional Office at
35/36, Tagore Villa, Dehradun
through its Authorised Signatory
2. United India Insurance Company Limited
through its Divisional Manager
having its Divisional Office at
Haldwani, District Nainital
through its Authorised Signatory
......Appellants / Opposite Parties
Versus
Kajima Daewoo J.V.
H.E. Project Chirkila, Dharchula
District Pithoragarh
through its Authorised Signatory Sh. Deepak Joshi
......Respondent / Complainant
Sh. J.K. Jain, Learned Counsel for the Appellants
None for Respondent
Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice B.S. Verma, President
Mr. D.K. Tyagi, H.J.S., Member
Mrs. Veena Sharma, Member
Dated: 23/09/2016
ORDER
(Per: Justice B.S. Verma, President):
This appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is directed against the order dated 26.07.2008 passed by the District Forum, Pithoragarh in consumer complaint No. 22 of 2007.
2. Briefly stated the facts giving rise to the appeal are that the complainant was engaged in construction of Dhauliganga H.E. Project 2 at Dharchula. The complainant had obtained a Workmen Compensation Insurance Policy from United India Insurance Company Limited, Pithoragarh - opposite party No. 1. It was alleged that during the course of employment at Chirkila, three workmen of the complainant died on 05.12.2004. The said workmen were covered under the insurance policy obtained by the complainant. The complainant approached the opposite party No. 1 for payment of compensation to the legal heirs of the deceased workmen. The insurance company asked the complainant to deposit the amount of compensation with the Workmen Compensation Commissioner, Pithoragarh and the same shall be reimbursed to the complainant. The amount as detailed in para 6 of the consumer complaint was deposited by the complainant with the Workmen Compensation Commissioner, Pithoragarh for being paid to the legal heirs of the deceased workmen of the complainant. All the receipts were submitted by the complainant with the insurance company. The insurance company appointed investigator Sh. V.D. Joshi, who submitted his report dated 13.01.2005 to the insurance company. After receipt of the report of the investigator, the insurance company directed the complainant to deposit further sum of Rs. 84,789/- towards premium, stating that earlier less amount was received towards premium. The said amount was deposited by the complainant with the insurance company. The complainant asked the insurance company to pay the amount of Rs. 10,39,860/- deposited by the complainant with the Workmen Compensation Commissioner, Pithoragarh, but the insurance company did not pay the said amount. Therefore, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the insurance company, the complainant filed a consumer complaint before the District Forum, Pithoragarh.
3. The insurance company filed written statement before the District Forum and pleaded that the Consumer Forum has no 3 jurisdiction in the matter; that the complainant has not submitted the attendance register of the deceased workmen; that at the time of taking the policy, the complainant has not disclosed the names of the workmen; that no intimation regarding death of the workmen was given by the complainant to the insurance company; that the complainant has obtained the insurance policy by fraud and has paid the less premium; that the complainant is not entitled to any amount from the insurance company and that there is no deficiency in service on their part.
4. The District Forum after perusal of the evidence on record allowed the consumer complaint vide impugned order dated 26.07.2008 and directed the appellants - opposite parties to pay compensation of Rs. 10,39,860/- (the amount deposited by the respondent - complainant with the Workmen Compensation Commissioner, Pithoragarh) to the respondent - complainant together with litigation expenses of Rs. 2,000/-. Aggrieved by the impugned order, the insurance company has filed the present appeal.
5. None appeared on behalf of respondent - complainant inspite of sufficient service. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellants - insurance company and gone through the record.
6. There is no dispute with regard to the fact that the complainant has obtained Workmen Compensation Insurance Policy from United India Insurance Company Limited, Pithoragarh and under the said policy, the workmen of the complainant were duly insured. There is also no dispute that during the currency of the said insurance policy, three workmen of the complainant died in an accident on 05.12.2004 during the course of their employment with the complainant. The investigator appointed by the insurance company has also found the 4 claim of the complainant as genuine and has not denied the factum of death of workmen of the complainant during the course of their employment.
7. As the workmen of the complainant had died in an accident during the course of their employment and, as such, the complainant has deposited the amount of compensation with the Workmen Compensation Commissioner, Pithoragarh, for being paid to the legal heirs of the deceased workmen, who have also received the said amount. The receipts regarding receipt of the amount deposited by the complainant with the Workmen Compensation Commissioner, Pithoragarh by the legal heirs of the deceased workmen are on record. The insurance company has not denied the fact that the complainant has not deposited any amount with the Workmen Compensation Commissioner, Pithoragarh in regard to the death of his workmen during the course of their employment and which amount has been received by the legal heirs of the deceased workmen of the complainant. Since the complainant has deposited the amount with the Workmen Compensation Commissioner, Pithoragarh for payment to the legal heirs of the deceased workmen and, as such, the insurance company was liable to compensate the complainant, as the complainant has obtained Workmen Compensation Insurance Policy from the insurance company and the workmen of the complainant were duly covered under the said policy.
8. So far as the plea taken by the insurance company that less amount of premium was deposited by the complainant with the insurance company is concerned, we do not find any force in the said plea. The reason being that the insurance policy was issued by the insurance company after receipt of the requisite premium. Even otherwise, the insurance company through their letter dated 5 07.07.2006 (Paper No. 6Ga/8 of the original record) has asked the complainant to deposit the balance premium amount of Rs. 84,789/-, so that the three death claims may be settled. The said amount was deposited by the complainant with the insurance company through cheque dated 13.07.2006 and the same was duly accepted by the insurance company. Thus, the insurance company is now estopped from saying that the complainant has deposited any less premium amount, on account whereof the deceased workmen of the complainant were not covered under the insurance policy in question.
9. The District Forum has considered all the facts and circumstances of the case and has rightly allowed the consumer complaint vide impugned order, which does not call for any interference. The appeal lacks merit and is liable to be dismissed.
10. Appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs.
(MRS. VEENA SHARMA) (D.K. TYAGI) (JUSTICE B.S. VERMA) K