National Consumer Disputes Redressal
New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs Nahiyhari Kawar & 2 Ors. on 27 November, 2015
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI REVISION PETITION NO. 3095 OF 2010 (Against the Order dated 23/06/2010 in Appeal No. 163/2010 of the State Commission West Bengal) 1. NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD. Divisional Office - 511700, 4, Mango Lane, (2nd Floor) Kolkata - 700001 West Bengal ...........Petitioner(s) Versus 1. MUKTI PODDAR & ANR. C/o. Sri. Bholanath Saha, 20, Mahajati Road, Nalta Kolkata - 700028 West Bengal 2. M/S. GOLDEN TRUST FINANCIAL SERVICES 16, R.N. Mukherjee Road Kolkata - 700028 West Bengal ...........Respondent(s) REVISION PETITION NO. 1067 OF 2012 (Against the Order dated 28/11/2011 in Appeal No. 288/2010 of the State Commission West Bengal) 1. NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD. Siliguri Division,Malhotra, Pradhan Nagar,Hill Cart Road, Siliguri -734 403 Darjeeling West Bengal ...........Petitioner(s) Versus 1. NAHIYHARI KAWAR & 2 ORS. W/o Late Lalsai Kanwar,
kalipur Forest Bhastim P.O Ramsaihat,P.S Moynaguri Jalpaiguri West Bengal 2. Suraj Kawar, S/o Late Lalsai Kawar kalipur Forest Bhastim P.O Ramsaihat,P.S Moynaguri Jalpaiguri West Bengal 3. the Branch Manager, Golden Trust Financial Services Burdwan Road, Siliguri - 734 001 West Bengal ...........Respondent(s) REVISION PETITION NO. 1218 OF 2011 (Against the Order dated 04/02/2011 in Appeal No. 505/2010 of the State Commission West Bengal) 1. NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD. R/o. I, Level 5, Tower-II, Jeevan Bharti, 124, Connaught Circus New Delhi - 110001 Delhi ...........Petitioner(s) Versus 1. MITHU PARAL & ANR. Balitikuri Kalitala (Natun Pally), P.O. Dasnagar, P.S. Jagacha Howrah - 711402 Maharahstra 2. GOLDEN TRUST FINANCIAL SERVICES (GTFS) S.B. Mansion, 16, R.N. Mukherjee Road, P.S. Here Street Kolkata - 700001 West Bengal ...........Respondent(s) REVISION PETITION NO. 16 OF 2015 (Against the Order dated 02/12/2014 in Appeal No. 97/2014 of the State Commission West Bengal) 1. NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD. 3RD FLOOR, RG CITY CENTRE, LSC, BLOCK, LAWRENCE ROAD, NEW DELHI - 110035 ...........Petitioner(s) Versus 1. ARATI BOSE & ANR. W/O LATE HOYEB BOSE, VILL.SHEAKHALA,.
P.S CHANDTALA, DISTRICT : HOOGLY - 712706 W.B 2. GOLDEN TRUST FINANCIAL SERVICES, 155 LENIN SARANI, P.S TALTALA, KOLKATA - 700 013 W.B. ...........Respondent(s) REVISION PETITION NO. 182 OF 2011 (Against the Order dated 29/11/2010 in Appeal No. 315/2010 of the State Commission West Bengal) 1. NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD. Howrah Divisional Officer, Madhusudan Apartment, 2nd Floor, P-18, Dosan Lane Howrah - 711101 ...........Petitioner(s) Versus 1. RAJRANI BEGUM & ANR. R/o. Vill. & P.O. Gohogram (Merapara), P.S. Galsi Burdwan West Bengal 2. M/S. GOLDEN TRUST FINANCIAL SERVICES Through its Manager, 16, R.N. Mukherjee Road Kolkata - 700001 West Bengal ...........Respondent(s) REVISION PETITION NO. 1847 OF 2013 (Against the Order dated 08/03/2013 in Appeal No. 274/2012 of the State Commission West Bengal) 1. NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD. REGIOANL OFFICE, 4 MANGOE LANE, KOLKATA W.B ...........Petitioner(s) Versus 1. SANKAR RAI & ANR. S/O LLATE MANABAHADUR RAI, REP BY SMT LILA RAI, W/O LATE MANBAHADUR RAI, R/O PURBA JHAR BELTLI, P.O BELTLI BHANDANI JALPAIGURI W.B 2. THE GOLDEN TRUST FINANCIAL SERVICES, 16. R.N MUKHERJEE ROAD, KOLKATA - 700 001 W.B ...........Respondent(s) REVISION PETITION NO. 1848 OF 2013 (Against the Order dated 08/03/2013 in Appeal No. 377/2012 of the State Commission West Bengal) 1. NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD. HOWRAH BRANCH, UNIT NO-512200 MADHUSUDHAN APTS, P-18, DOBSON LANE, 2ND FLOOR, P.S GOLABARI, HOWRAH W.B ...........Petitioner(s) Versus 1. MAYA BANERJEE & ANR. 9/C MANASATALA LANE, P.O MAHESH P.S SERAMPORE HOOGHLY W.B 2. THE GOLDEN TRUST FINANCIAL SERVICES, 16. R.N MUKHERJEE ROAD, KOLKATA - 700 001 W.B ...........Respondent(s) REVISION PETITION NO. 1902 OF 2013 (Against the Order dated 20/03/2013 in Appeal No. 459/2010 of the State Commission West Bengal) 1. NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD. HOWRAH BRANCH UNIT NO-512200, MADHUSUDHAN APTS, P-18 DOBSON LANE,2ND FLOOR, P.S GOLABARI, HOWRAH W.B ...........Petitioner(s) Versus 1. ANJU RANI BISWAS & ANR. W/O LATE DIPAL KUMAR BISWAS, R/O 2/90-A DUM DUM ROAD, P.O MOTIJHIL, P.S DUM DUM, NORTH 24 PARGANAS W.B 2. THE GOLDEN TRUST FINANCIAL SERVICES, S.B MANSION, 16. R.N MUKHERJEE ROAD, KOLKATA - 700 001 W.B ...........Respondent(s) REVISION PETITION NO. 1902 OF 2015 (Against the Order dated 22/06/2015 in Appeal No. 763/2014 of the State Commission West Bengal) 1. NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD. MALHOTRA TOWER, HILL CART ROAD, P.O. & P.S.-PRODHAN NAGAR, SILIGURI DARJEELING - 734 404 2. THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO LIMITED THROUGH MANAGER, REGIONAL OFFICE-I 301, R.G. CITY CENTER, 3RD FLOOR, LSC, BLOCK 'B', LAWRAMCE ROAD NEW DELHI-110035 ...........Petitioner(s) Versus 1. SIKHA DAS & ANR. SIKHA RANI DAS, W/O LATE BIMAL KUMAR DAS, VILLAGE MATHURA BAGAN, P.S. ALIPURDUAR JALPAIGURI - 736 204 2. GOLDEN TRUST FINANCIAL SERVICES LTD COLLAGE HALT BRANCH, ALIPURDUAR, P.O. ALIPURDUAR COURT, P.S. ALIPURDUAR, JALPAIGURI-736122 ...........Respondent(s) REVISION PETITION NO. 2049 OF 2011 (Against the Order dated 18/04/2011 in Appeal No. 274/2010 of the State Commission West Bengal) 1. NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD. KOLAKATA DIVISIONAL OFFICE-IUNIT-51700, 4 MANGOE LANE,2nd FLOOR KOLKATA-700001 WEST BENGAL ...........Petitioner(s) Versus 1. BANOSREE MITRA & ANR. VILLAGE PALLAGOTE,P.O SALBONI, PASCHIM MEDINIPUR WEST BENGAL 2. THE GOLDEN TRUST FINANCIAL SERVICE 16, R.N. MUKHERJEE ROAD KOLKATTA-700001 WEST BENGAL ...........Respondent(s) REVISION PETITION NO. 2050 OF 2011 (Against the Order dated 28/04/2011 in Appeal No. 303/2010 of the State Commission West Bengal) 1. NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD. 4-MANGOE LANE (SECOND FLOOR).
P.S STREET STREET KOLKATA-700001 WEST BENGAL ...........Petitioner(s) Versus 1. RANI DEVI & ANR. C/O DAMODAR SAHANI, STATION ROAD, CANNING TOWN, SOUTH 24 PARGANAS WERT BENGAL 2. M/S. GOLDEN TRUST FINANCIAL SERVICES 16.R.N MIKHERJEE ROAD, KOKATA-700001 WEST BENGAL ...........Respondent(s) REVISION PETITION NO. 211 OF 2015 (Against the Order dated 17/12/2014 in Appeal No. 255/2014 of the State Commission West Bengal) 1. NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD. 3RD FLOOR, RG CITY CENTRE, LSC, B-BLOCK, LAWRENCE ROAD, NEW DELHI - 110035 ...........Petitioner(s) Versus 1. CHAMPA DAS & ANR. W/O LATE HEMANTA KUMAR, VILL.MAHIARI NEW PHARIDPUR, PO, MAHIARI, DISTRICT : NADIA, P.S KALIGUNJ 2. MANAGER, GOLDEN MULTISERVICES CLUB, OF M/S GTFS, NABADWIP BRANCH, P.O & P.S BABADWIP DISTRICT - NADIA - 741302 ...........Respondent(s) REVISION PETITION NO. 2116 OF 2012 (Against the Order dated 20/04/2012 in Appeal No. 406/2011 of the State Commission West Bengal) 1. NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD. R/o I Level-5 Tower-II Jeewan Bharti -124 Connought Circus New Delhi - 110001 Delhi ...........Petitioner(s) Versus 1. ALPANA PAUL & 2 ORS. W/d of Late Anil Krishna Paul Mankundu Garerdhar, PO & PS ,Chandannagar Hooghly West Bengal 2. Golden Trust Fianancial Services, Rep by its Manager, 16 R.N Mukherjee Road Kolkata - 7000001 West Bengal 3. Sri Swarup pal, S/o Late Dilip Kumar Pal, Radha Apts Charabaghan Mankundu Station Road, P.O & P.S Chandernagaer Hooghly West bengal ...........Respondent(s) REVISION PETITION NO. 2312 OF 2014 (Against the Order dated 11/04/2014 in Appeal No. 374/2013 of the State Commission West Bengal) 1. NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LTD. THROUGH ITS DULY CONSTITUTED ATTORYNEY MANAGER, NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO LTD, R/O -I/LEVEL5, TOWER-II,.
JEEVAN BHARTI,124 CONNAUGHT CIRCUS NEW DELHI - 110001 ...........Petitioner(s) Versus 1. BANITA DEY & ANR. W/O LATE BISWAJIT DEY, 15-A, PALLYSREE COLONY, TALA, KOLKATA - 700092 W.B 2. GOLDEN TRUST FINANCIAL SERVICES, 16 R.N MUKHERJEE ROAD, KOLKATA - 700001 W.B ...........Respondent(s) REVISION PETITION NO. 2346 OF 2015 (Against the Order dated 14/08/2015 in Appeal No. 830/2013 of the State Commission West Bengal) 1. NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD. CDU-511700, 4,MANGOE LANE, 2ND FLOOR, KOLKATA- 700 001 W.B ...........Petitioner(s) Versus 1. ARATI SHAW & ANR. W/O LATE KARTICK SHAW, VILLAGE, KELEGADA, P.O GOCHATI, P.S DASPUR, DISTRICT : PASCHIM MEDINIPORE W.B. 2. GOLDEN TRUST FINANCIAL SERVICES LTD., 16.R.N MUKHERJEE ROAD, KOLKATA - 700 001 W.B. ...........Respondent(s) REVISION PETITION NO. 2378 OF 2013 (Against the Order dated 02/04/2013 in Appeal No. 80/2012 of the State Commission West Bengal) 1. NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD. 4 MANGOE LANE KOLKATA - 700 001 W.B ...........Petitioner(s) Versus 1. RESHMA BEGUM & ANR. D/O LATE SK.JAHANGIR, 7E ABINASH CHOWDHURY LANE KOLKATA - 700 046 W.B 2. THE GOLDEN TRUST FINANCIAL SERVICE 16 R.N MUKHERJEE ROAD, KOLAKATA - 700 001 W.B ...........Respondent(s) REVISION PETITION NO. 2387 OF 2011 (Against the Order dated 10/06/2011 in Appeal No. 436/2010 of the State Commission West Bengal) 1. NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD. Through Manager, regional Office-I, Jeewan Bharti Building, 124,Cannought Circus New Delhi - 110 001 Delhi ...........Petitioner(s) Versus 1. RAJU & ANR. S/o Late Gulbari Das 7 Phari Bagan,Kamarhati, P.S belghoria kolkata - 700 057 West Bangal 2. The Golden Trust Financial Service S.B Mansion, 16,R.N Mukherjee Road Kolkata - 700 001 West bengal ...........Respondent(s) REVISION PETITION NO. 2480 OF 2013 (Against the Order dated 31/12/2008 in Appeal No. 512/2007 of the State Commission Jharkhand) 1. NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD. VIDHYA MARKET , LEPO ROAD, HAZARIBAGH JHARKHAND ...........Petitioner(s) Versus 1. JAINAB KHATOON & ANR. W/O LATE AHMED HUSSAIN, K.K COLLIERY, P.O SAYAL P.S PATRATU, (BHURKUNDA O.P) HAZARIBAGH JHARKHAND 2. GOLDEN TRUST FINANCIAL SERVICE, 16 R.N MUKJERJEE ROAD, KOLKATA - 700 001 W.B 3. Taukir Alam S/O LATE AHMED HUSSAIN 4. Mahtab Alam S/O LATE AHMED HUSSAIN ...........Respondent(s) REVISION PETITION NO. 2570 OF 2011 (Against the Order dated 15/06/2011 in Appeal No. 431/2010 of the State Commission West Bengal) 1. NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD. New India Insurence Co.Ltd.
R/o -i Level-5- Tower -II, Jeewan Bharti, 124 Cannought Circus New delhi - 110001 Delhi ...........Petitioner(s) Versus 1. JOYSHNA JOYDHAR & ANR. W/o Late Sh Parimal Joydhar, R/o Village Basirath Chottojirakar, P.O & P.S Barishrat North 24 Parganas West Bangal 2. Goldern Trust Financial Services (GTFS) S.B Mansion, 16 R.N, Mukherjee Road, P.S, Hare Street Kolkata - 700001 West Bangal ...........Respondent(s) REVISION PETITION NO. 2571 OF 2011 (Against the Order dated 14/06/2011 in Appeal No. 533/2010 of the State Commission West Bengal) 1. NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD. New India Assirence Co.Ltd, R.O -I Level 5 Tower-II, Jeewan Bharti, 124 Cannought Circus New Delhi - 110001 Delhi ...........Petitioner(s) Versus 1. LAKSHMI MONDAL & ANR. W/o Late Sh Ashok Mondal, R/o Jyngra ( Mondalpara) PO jyangra P.S Rajarhat, Distt North 24 Parganas kolkata - 700059 West Bangal 2. Goldern Trust Finacial Services (GTFS) SB Mansion, 16 R.N. Mukherjee Road, P.S Hare Street Kolkata - 700001 West Bangal 3. Goldern Trust Finacial Services (GTFS) SB Mansion, 16 R.N. Mukherjee Road, P.S Hare Street Kolkata - 700001 West Bangal ...........Respondent(s) REVISION PETITION NO. 2585 OF 2010 (Against the Order dated 30/04/2010 in Appeal No. 67/2010 of the State Commission West Bengal) 1. NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD. Howrah Division Office, Madhusudan Apartment, 2nd Floor, P-18, Dobson Lane Howrah - 711701 West Bengal ...........Petitioner(s) Versus 1. PURNIMA DEY & ANR. Railway Quarter No. 494/B, Suparibagan Colony, P.O. Alipurduar Junction Jalpaiguri West Bengal 2. M/S. GOLDEN TRUST FINANCIAL SERVICES Through General Manager, 16, R.N. Mukherjee Road Kolkata - 700001 West Bengal ...........Respondent(s) REVISION PETITION NO. 2590 OF 2010 (Against the Order dated 29/04/2010 in Appeal No. 33/2010 of the State Commission West Bengal) 1. NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD. Howrah Division Office, Madhusudan Apartment, 2nd Floor, P-18, Dobson Lane Howrah - 711701 West Bengal ...........Petitioner(s) Versus 1. MOHAN LAL HELA & ANR. East Land Quarter No. 32/3, Type-II, P.O. Bengal Enamel, P.S.- Noapora North 24-Parganas West Bengal 2. THE GENERAL MANAGER M/s. Golden Trust Financial Services, 16, R.N. Mukherjee Road Kolkata - 700001 West Bengal ...........Respondent(s) REVISION PETITION NO. 2595 OF 2011 (Against the Order dated 30/06/2011 in Appeal No. 435/2010 of the State Commission West Bengal) 1. NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD. Howrah Branch, Madusudhan Apartment, 2nd Floor, P-18, Dobson Lane Howrah - 700 101 West Bangal ...........Petitioner(s) Versus 1. AKASH SINGH & ORS. S/o. Late Rajesh Singh, Airport Gate No.1, Motilal Colony, Mujumder Para, P.O, Italgacha, PS Dum Dum, North 21 Paraganas West Bangal 2. Kumari Khusbu Singh, D/o Late Rajesh Singh, Airport Gate no.1, Motilal Colony, Mujumder Para, P.O Italgacha, P.S Dum Dum North 24 Parganas West Bangal 3. Kumari Khusbu Singh, D/o Late Rajesh Singh, Airport Gate no.1, Motilal Colony, Mujumder Para, P.O Italgacha, P.S Dum Dum North 24 Parganas West Bangal 4. The Golden Trust Financial Service, S.B Mansion, 16, R.N, Mukherjee Nagar Kolkatta - 700 001 West Bangal ...........Respondent(s) REVISION PETITION NO. 2659 OF 2014 (Against the Order dated 29/05/2014 in Appeal No. 1029/2013 of the State Commission West Bengal) 1. NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD. HOWRAH BRANCH, MADHUSUDAN APTS.
P-18 DOBSON LANE-(2ND FLOOR) HOWRAH - 711101 W.B ...........Petitioner(s) Versus 1. TANMOY PAL & ANR. S/O LATE ASHIT KUMAR PAL, VILLAGE &POST OFFICE:JITPUR, POLICE STATION-DOMKAL, DISTRICT MURSHIDABAD U.P 2. GOLDEN TRUST FINANCIAL SERVICES LTD.. 15 R.N MUKHERJEE ROAD, KOLKATA - 700001 W.B ...........Respondent(s) REVISION PETITION NO. 2664 OF 2013 (Against the Order dated 17/05/2013 in Appeal No. 452/2010 of the State Commission West Bengal) 1. NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD. CALCUTTA DIVISIONAL UNIT -511700, MANGOE LANE (2ND FLOOR) KOLKATA -700 001 W.B ...........Petitioner(s) Versus 1. CHANDRANI CHAKRABORTY & 3 ORS. W/O LATE DLUAL CHAKRABORTY, R/O ASHOKAPALLY, P.O & P.S RAINGANJ, UTTAR DINAJPUR W.B 2. GOLDEN TRUST FINANCIAL SERVICES, S.B MANSION, 16, R.N MUKHERJEE ROAD, KOLKATA - 700 001 W.B 3. THE MANAGER, GOLDEN TRUST FIANCIAL SERVICES, MALDA BRANCH OFFICE S.B.I. BUILDING, MALDA ...........Respondent(s) REVISION PETITION NO. 2859 OF 2010 (Against the Order dated 17/06/2010 in Appeal No. 139/2010 of the State Commission West Bengal) 1. NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD. Through Manager, Regional Office - I, Jeevan Bharti Building, 124, Connaught Circus New Delhi - 110001 Delhi ...........Petitioner(s) Versus 1. MADHUSUDHAN NANDY & ANR. Village: Sinja, P.O. Jhikra Burdwan - 713422 West Bengal 2. M/S. GOLDEN TRUST FINANCIAL SERVICES 16, R.N. Mukherjee Road Kolkata - 700001 West Bengal ...........Respondent(s) REVISION PETITION NO. 3013 OF 2014 (Against the Order dated 17/06/2014 in Appeal No. 598/2013 of the State Commission West Bengal) 1. NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LTD. THROUGH ITS DULY CONSTITUTED ATTORYNEY MANAGER, NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO LTD, R/O -I/LEVEL5, TOWER-II,. JEEVAN BHARTI,124 CONNAUGHT CIRCUS NEW DELHI - 110001 ...........Petitioner(s) Versus 1. SWARNA CHATERJEE & ANR. W/O LATE SH.AJAY KUMAR CHATTERJEE, QTR NO-B/09/53( OLD B-TYPE) CHINSURIA R.N COLONY, P.O CHINSURIA, DISTRICT : BURDWAN - 713378 W.B 2. GOLDEN TRUST FINANCIAL SERVICES, HAVING ITS OFFICE AT 15.R.N MUKHERJEE ROAD, KOLKATA - 700001 W.B ...........Respondent(s) REVISION PETITION NO. 3108 OF 2014 (Against the Order dated 05/06/2014 in Appeal No. 693/2012 of the State Commission West Bengal) 1. NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD. & ANR. REP HOWRAH BRANCH, MADHUSUDHAN APT, B-18 DOBSON LANE,2ND FLOOR, HOWRAH - 711101 W.B 2. THE BRANCH MANAGER, THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO LTD. MALDA BRANCH OFFICE, 21/22, RABINDRA AVENUE, P.O & MALDA W.B ...........Petitioner(s) Versus 1. SUNDARI ORAW & 2 ORS. W/O LATE BADSAI ORAW, VILLAGE PIRRATOLA PO TILASHAR, SINGABAD , P.,S HABIBPUR, DISTRICT : MALDA W.B 2. THE GOLDEN TRUST FINANCIAL SERVICES, REP BY BRANCH MANAGER, NH-34. RATHBARI (NEAR PEARLESS OFFICE) 2ND FLOOR, P.O DISTRICT : MALDA W.B 3. THE GOLDEN TRUST FINANCIAL SERVICES, REP BY ZONAL MANAGER, 16 R.N MUKHERJEE ROAD, KOLKATA - 700 001 W.B ...........Respondent(s) REVISION PETITION NO. 3177 OF 2011 (Against the Order dated 25/08/2011 in Appeal No. 430/2010 of the State Commission West Bengal) 1. NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD. R/o-I, level 5,Tower-II, Jeewan Bharti,124, Cannought Circus New Delhi -110001 Delhi ...........Petitioner(s) Versus 1. BIPLAB DEY & ANR. 1/39-2 Jatin Das Nagar, P.O & P.S Belghoria, North 24 Pargans West Bangal 2. Golden Trust Financial Services (GTFS) S.B Mansion, 16, R.N Mukherjee Road, P.S hare Street Kolkata - 700001 West Bangal ...........Respondent(s) REVISION PETITION NO. 3178 OF 2011 (Against the Order dated 15/12/2010 in Appeal No. 464/2010 of the State Commission West Bengal) 1. NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD. R/o.-I Level-5, Tower -II, Jeewan Bhart-124, Cannought Circus New Delhi -110001 Delhi ...........Petitioner(s) Versus 1. SUKLA ROY & ANR. W/o. Late Sh Bisweswar Roy, Subhash Pally, NS Road, PO & PS Siliguri, Darjelling West Bangal 2. Goldern Trust Financial Trust,(GTFS) S.B Mansiuon,16.RN Mukherjee Road, PS Hare Street Kolkata - 700001 West Bangal ...........Respondent(s) REVISION PETITION NO. 322 OF 2015 (Against the Order dated 25/11/2014 in Appeal No. 596/2013 of the State Commission West Bengal) 1. NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD. DELHI REGIONAL OFFICE, 5TH FLOOR, JEEVAN BHARTI BUILDING, CONNAUGHT PLACE, NEW DELHI - 110001 ...........Petitioner(s) Versus 1. SIMA MAHANTA & ANR. LATE SBHASIS MAHANTA, PITHAKERIA , P.O RUPNARYANPUR, BAZAR, P.S SALANPUR, DISTRICT : BURDWAN MAHARASHTRA 2. MANAGER, GOLDEN TRUST FINANCIAL SERVICES 16, R.N MUKHERJEE ROAD, KOLKATA - 700001 W.B. ...........Respondent(s) REVISION PETITION NO. 3222 OF 2014 (Against the Order dated 11/06/2014 in Appeal No. 361/2013 of the State Commission West Bengal) 1. NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD. DELHI REGIONAL OFFICE, 5TH FLOOR, JEEVAN BHARATI BUILDING, CONNAUGHT PLACE, NEW DELHI-110001 DELHI ...........Petitioner(s) Versus 1. CHANDANA MONDAL & ANR. W/O. LATE BISWANATH MONDAL, VILLAGE SABALPUR, P.O. EKGHARIA,P.S. BARWAN, MURSHIDABAD W.B. 2. GOLDEN TRUST FINANCIAL SERVICES 16, R.N. MUKHERJEE ROAD, KOLKATA-700001 W.B. ...........Respondent(s) REVISION PETITION NO. 3223 OF 2014 (Against the Order dated 27/06/2014 in Appeal No. 668/2013 of the State Commission West Bengal) 1. NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD. DELHI REGIONAL OFFICE 5TH FLOOR. JEEVAN BHARTI BUILDING CONNAUGHT PLACE NEW DELHI- 110001 ...........Petitioner(s) Versus 1. SOMA DEY @ SUMA DEY & ANR. W/O. LATE.SISHIR DEY AT SADARGHAT, RABINDRA PALLY (HUCHUK PARA),P.O. SRI PALLY BURDWAN WEST BENGAL 2. MANAGER, GOLDEN TRUST FINANCIAL SERVICES, 16, R.N MUKHERJEE ROAD KOLKATA -700001 ...........Respondent(s) REVISION PETITION NO. 3260 OF 2014 (Against the Order dated 11/07/2014 in Appeal No. 924/2013 of the State Commission West Bengal) 1. NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LTD. THROUGH ITS DULY CONSTITUTED ATTORNEY MANAGER NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO.LTD.
R/O.- 1, LEVAL 5, TOWER- II, JEEVAN BHARTI,124, CONNAUGHT CIRCUS NEW DELHI- 110001 ...........Petitioner(s) Versus 1. MAMTAZ BIBI & ANR. W/O LATE MD. ANWAR R/O VILLAGE SORULIA COLONEY, P.O. BARUA, P.S. BELDANGA MURSHIDABAD WEST BENGAL 2. GOLDEN TRUST FINANCIAL SERVICES 158/1,158/2,R.N. TAGORE ROAD, P.O. BERHAMPORE MURSHIDABAD WEST BENGAL ...........Respondent(s) REVISION PETITION NO. 3273 OF 2014 (Against the Order dated 24/07/2014 in Appeal No. 75/2013 of the State Commission West Bengal) 1. NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD. DELHI REGIONAL OFFICE 5TH FLOOR, JEEVAN BHARTI BUILDING, CONNAUGHT PLACE NEW DELHI- 110001 ...........Petitioner(s) Versus 1. SMT. SIKHA DAS & ANR. W/O. LATE BHARAT DAS R/O. 284,SUTIR MATH P.O.& P.S.BERHAMPORE MURSHIDABAD WEST BENGAL 2. THE MANAGER GOLDEN TRUST FINANCIAL SERVICES 16, R.N MUKHERJEE ROAD KOLKATA-700001 ...........Respondent(s) REVISION PETITION NO. 3276 OF 2013 (Against the Order dated 23/07/2013 in Appeal No. 310/2012 of the State Commission West Bengal) 1. NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD. HOWRAH BRANCH UNIT NO-512200, AT MADHUSUDHAN APARTMENTS, P-19 DOBSON LANE, (2ND FLOOR) P.S GOLABARI DISTRICT : HOWRAH - 711101 WEST BENGAL ...........Petitioner(s) Versus 1. ASHOK MALLICK & ANR. S/O LATE ASHIWINI MALLICK, VILLAGE & P.O MIDNAPORE, P.S KATOWALI, DISTRICT : PASCHIM MIDNAPORE - 720001 WEST BENGAL 2. GOLDEN TRUST FINANCIAL SERVICE LTD. HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT:16. R.N MUKHERJEE ROAD, KOLKATA - 7000001 WEST BENGAL ...........Respondent(s) REVISION PETITION NO. 3390 OF 2011 (Against the Order dated 03/08/2011 in Appeal No. 524/2010 of the State Commission West Bengal) 1. NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD. R/o -1 Level 5 Tower-II, Jeewan Bharti,124 Cannought Circus New Delhi - 110001 Delhi ...........Petitioner(s) Versus 1. SATISH KUMAR PANDEY Brother of Rabush Kumar Pandey, R/20 Park Lane Kolkata - 700016 West Bangal 2. Golden Trust Financial Services ( GTFS) SB Mansion , 16 RN Mukherjee Road, PS, Hare Street Kolkata - 700001 West Bangal ...........Respondent(s) REVISION PETITION NO. 3391 OF 2011 (Against the Order dated 03/08/2011 in Appeal No. 476/2010 of the State Commission West Bengal) 1. NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD. R/o -1 Level 5 Tower-II, Jeewan Bharti,124 Cannought Circus New delhi - 110001 Delhi ...........Petitioner(s) Versus 1. CHHAYA KHOTEL & ANR. R/o Rajesh Bhagat, 9/1 Lalji Sha Street, DUm DUm Cantonment, P.O & P.S Dum Dum North 34 Parganas West Bangal 2. Golden Trust Financial Services ( GTFS) SB Mansion , 16 RN Mukherjee Road, PS, Hare Street Kolkata - 700001 West Bangal ...........Respondent(s) REVISION PETITION NO. 3407 OF 2011 (Against the Order dated 04/08/2011 in Appeal No. 357/2010 of the State Commission West Bengal) 1. NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD. Regional Office:-1 Jeevan Bharti Building, 124 Cannought Circus New Delhi - 110 001 Delhi ...........Petitioner(s) Versus 1. SUKLA BHATTACHARYA & ANR. W/o. Late Swapan Kumar Bhattacharya, B/5 School Road, P.O Sodepur North 24 Parganas Kolkata - 700 110 2. The Golden Trust Fincial Services S.B Mansion, 16 R.N Mukherjee Road Kolkatta - 700 001 West Bangal ...........Respondent(s) REVISION PETITION NO. 3408 OF 2011 (Against the Order dated 24/08/2011 in Appeal No. 296/2010 of the State Commission West Bengal) 1. NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD. W/o Late Ramnath baitha,Babupara P.S Mayanaguri Jalpaiguri West Bangal ...........Petitioner(s) Versus 1. RAMA BAITHA & ANR. Jalpaiguri Branch Office: "Basudeb Complex" Kadamtala, (Near Central Bank of India, Kadamata Branch) Post & Jalpaiguri West Bangal 2. New India Assurence Co.Ltd.., Having Divisional Offce at Malhotra Towers Prodhan Nagar, Hill Cart Road Siliguri West Bangal ...........Respondent(s) REVISION PETITION NO. 3710 OF 2011 (Against the Order dated 24/08/2011 in Appeal No. 268/2010 of the State Commission West Bengal) 1. NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD. Manager, New India Assurence Co ltd.
R.O -1 Level 5, Tower-II, Jeevan Bharti,124, Cannought Circus New Delhi - 110001 Delhi ...........Petitioner(s) Versus 1. LAKSHMI RANI DEY & ORS. R/o Sirpur Phul Bagan, P.O Gobardanga Ichapur North 24 Paraganas West Bengal 2. Golden Trust Finacial Services (GTFS) SB Mansion 16, RN Mukherjee Road, PS Hare Street Kolkata - 700001 West Bengal 3. Smt Dipa Dey @ Roy, Vill Kalyangrah, (Polta) Bengal Enamel, P.S Titagarh North 24 Paraganas West Bengal ...........Respondent(s) REVISION PETITION NO. 3790 OF 2012 (Against the Order dated 20/07/2012 in Appeal No. 291/2011 of the State Commission West Bengal) 1. NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD. Regional Office-I Jeevan Bharat Building 124 Connaught Circus New Delhi -110 001 Delhi ...........Petitioner(s) Versus 1. MONIKA PRAMANIK & ANR. W/o Late Harendra Nath Pramanik R/o Village & PO Rameshwanagar P.S Bauria Howrah - 711310 W.B 2. The Golden Trust Finacial Service 16. R,N Mukerjee Road Kolkatta - 700 001 W.B ...........Respondent(s) REVISION PETITION NO. 3837 OF 2011 (Against the Order dated 22/09/2011 in Appeal No. 383/2010 of the State Commission West Bengal) 1. NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD. through manager, Regional office-I jeevan building, 124 Cannought Circus New delhi - 110 001 Delhi ...........Petitioner(s) Versus 1. KAKALI DAKSHI & ANR. Village Ganguria, P.O, Simhat, P.S Haringhatam North 24 Parganas kolkata - 700 110 2. The Golden Trust Financial Services, SB mansion 16 RN Mukherjee Road kolkata - 700 001 3. GOLDEN TRUST FINANCE SERVICE - ...........Respondent(s) REVISION PETITION NO. 3899 OF 2013 (Against the Order dated 30/08/2012 in Appeal No. 365/2009 of the State Commission Jharkhand) 1. SABITRI DEVI W/O LATE SAMBHU YADAV, R/O HOUSE NO-109/B, VILLAGE DUGDA, NEAR RAILWAY STATION, P.O KARMATAND DUGDA, P.S DUGDA, DISTRICT: BOKARO JHARKHAND ...........Petitioner(s) Versus 1. NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD. & ANR. THROUGH ITS MANAGER,REGIONAL OFFICE-I, JEEVAN BHARTI BUILDING, 124 CONNAUGHT CIRCUS, NEW DELHI - 110001 2. GOLDEN TRUST FINANCIAL SERIVICE, DHANBAD, SERVICE TO BE EFFECTED AT IST HEAD OFFICE , 16 R.N MUKHERJEE ROAD, KOLKATA - 7000001 WEST BENGAL ...........Respondent(s) REVISION PETITION NO. 4199 OF 2014 (Against the Order dated 26/09/2014 in Appeal No. 1162/2013 of the State Commission West Bengal) 1. NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD. DELHI REGIONAL OFFICE-I, R.G CITY CENTRE,2ND/3RD FLOOR,, LSC, BLOCK-B, LAWRENCE ROAD, NEW DELHI - 110035 ...........Petitioner(s) Versus 1. RAFEJA BIBI @ AFEJA BIBI & ANR. W/O LATE AYUB KHAN, R/O VILL AMAMPUR, P.O DODPUR, P.S RAJINAGAR, DISTRICT : MURSHIDABAD W.B 2. THE MANAGER,GOLDEN TRUST FINANCIAL SERVICES, 165-R.N MUKHERJEE ROAD, KOLKATA W.B ...........Respondent(s) REVISION PETITION NO. 4292 OF 2014 (Against the Order dated 17/10/2014 in Appeal No. 1054/2013 of the State Commission West Bengal) 1. NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD. THROUGH ITS DULY CONSTITUTED ATTORNEY MANAGER, RG CITY, B-BLOCK LAWRENCE ROAD, NEW DELHI- 110001 ...........Petitioner(s) Versus 1. ATABALA MONDAL & ANR. W/O LATE SUSHIL MONDAL, VILL KURMANPUR, P.O CHAVOT, P.S ITAHAR DISTRICT : UTTAR DINAJPUR W.B 2. GOLDEN TRUST FINANCIAL SERVICES, RAIGANJ BRANCH, MOHANBATI, P.O & P.S RAIGANJ, DISTRICT : UTTAR DINAJPUR W.B ...........Respondent(s) REVISION PETITION NO. 4371 OF 2012 (Against the Order dated 30/08/2012 in Appeal No. 365/2009 of the State Commission Jharkhand) 1. NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD. Through Manager, Regional Office-I, Jeevan Bharti Building, 124, Connaught Circus, NEW DELHI - 110 001 DELHI ...........Petitioner(s) Versus 1. SABITRI DEVI & ANR. W/o Late Sambhu Yadav, R/o Village No-109/B, Villkage -Dugda, Near Railway Stattion, P.O Karmatand Dugda, P.S Dugda BOKARO JHARKHAND 2. The Golden Trust Fianancial Services Dhanbad, Service to be Effected at its Head Office,16 R.N Mukherjee Road, KOLKATA - 700 001 W.B ...........Respondent(s) REVISION PETITION NO. 4372 OF 2012 (Against the Order dated 12/09/2012 in Appeal No. 134/2011 of the State Commission West Bengal) 1. NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD. Through Manager, Regional Office-I, Jeevan Bharti Building, 124, Connaught Circus, NEW DELHI - 110 001 ...........Petitioner(s) Versus 1. SANTANU BHATTACHARYYA Chandidcharan Bhattcharyya, R/at Village & Post Office: Sainta Police Station Tarakeswar, HOOGHLY - 712410 W.B 2. The Golden Trust Fianancial Services Dhanbad, Service to be Effected at its Head Office,16 R.N Mukherjee Road, KOLKATA - 700 001 W.B ...........Respondent(s) REVISION PETITION NO. 443 OF 2015 (Against the Order dated 26/12/2014 in Appeal No. 339/2014 of the State Commission West Bengal) 1. NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD. THROUGH ITS DULY CONSTITUTED ATTORNEY,MANAGER, NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO LTD., 3RD FLOOR, RG CITY CENTRE,LSC, B BLOCK LAWRENCE ROAD, NEW DLHI - 110035 ...........Petitioner(s) Versus 1. RUMA BISWAS & ANR. W/O LATE SAMIR BISWAS, 943 GREEN PARK, P.O SAHAGUNJ, DISTRICT : HOOGHLY - 712104 W.B 2. GOLDEN TREUST FINANCIAL SERVICES, S.B MANSION, 16 R.N MUKHERJEE ROAD, KOLKATA - 700 001 W.B ...........Respondent(s) REVISION PETITION NO. 4433 OF 2014 (Against the Order dated 21/10/2014 in Appeal No. 271/2014 of the State Commission West Bengal) 1. NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD. DELHI REGIONAL OFFICE-I, LSC CITY CENTRE, 2ND/3RD FLOOR, LSC BLOCK-B, LAWRENCE ROAD, NEW DELHI - 110035 ...........Petitioner(s) Versus 1. SAYAR DEVI BAID & ANR. W/O LATE BAHADUR SINGH BAID, R/O P-54, VIP ROAD,, C.I.T. SCHEME, 7M,3RD FLOOR, FLOOR, KAKURGACHI, KOLKATA - 7111001 W.B 2. THE MANAGER, GOLDEN TRUST FINANCIAL SERVICES, 16 R.N MUKHERJEE ROAD, KOLKATA - 700001 W.B ...........Respondent(s) REVISION PETITION NO. 4658 OF 2013 (Against the Order dated 06/09/2013 in Appeal No. 357/2012 of the State Commission West Bengal) 1. NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD. BRANCH MANAGER, 21/22 RABINDRA AVENUE, P.S ENGLISH BAZAR, P.O & DISTRICT : MALDA WEST BENGAL ...........Petitioner(s) Versus 1. LUTFA KHANAM & ANR. W/O LATE MD.FARUQ HOSSAIN, R/O 13 HADIDUL HASAN, VILL & P.O SOUTH KADAMTALA, P.S KALIACHAK DISTRICT : MALDA WEST BENGAL 2. GOLDEN TRUST FINANCIAL SERVICES LTD RATHBARI,NH-34, (NEAR RATHBARI BRANCH) P.S ENGLISH BAZAR, P.O & DISTRICT : MALDA WEST BENGAL ...........Respondent(s) REVISION PETITION NO. 4659 OF 2013 (Against the Order dated 30/08/2013 in Appeal No. 650/2012 of the State Commission West Bengal) 1. NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD. DIVISION UNIT NO- 3/220, MADHUSUDAN APARTMENTS, B-18, DOBSON LANE, HOWRAH - 711101 W.B ...........Petitioner(s) Versus 1. RITA HALDER & ANR. W/O LATE TARAK HALDER, R/O IN THE HOUSE OF NARYANA CHANDRA BISWAS, DAKSHINPARA (NEAR MANSHATALA) MORE PUKURDHAR, P.O RISHRA DISTRICT : HOOGHLY - 712250 W.B 2. GOLDEN TRUST FINANCIAL SERVICES LTD . 155 LRNIN SARNI KOLKATA - 700 013 WEST BENGAL ...........Respondent(s) REVISION PETITION NO. 4660 OF 2013 (Against the Order dated 06/09/2013 in Appeal No. 670/2012 of the State Commission West Bengal) 1. NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD. KOLKATA DIVISIONAL OFFICE, UNIT NO-511700 4 MANGOE LANE, P.S HARE STREET, KOLKATA - 700 011 WEST BENGAL ...........Petitioner(s) Versus 1. PRAVA RANI MAITY & ANR. W/O LATE GUNADHAR MAITY, R/O AT VILLAGE MAITY, R/O AT VILLAGE-SITAL CHAK, P.O BAKURA, POLICE STATION AMTA, DISTRICT-HOWRAH WEST BENGAL 2. GOLDEN TRUST FINANCIAL SERVICES LTD 16 R.N MUKHERJEE ROAD KOLKATA - 700001 WEST BENGAL ...........Respondent(s) REVISION PETITION NO. 4661 OF 2013 (Against the Order dated 29/08/2013 in Appeal No. 272/2013 of the State Commission West Bengal) 1. NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD. BRANCH MANAGER, BURDWAN BRANCH, 70 B.C ROAD,KALITALA BURDWAN - 713101 WEST BENGAL ...........Petitioner(s) Versus 1. TIPU SULTAN & ANR. S/O S.K AKKEL ALI, VILLAGE KAPSHORE, P.O C-KANPUR, P.S & DISTRICT : BURDHWAN WEST BENGAL 2. THE MANAGER, GOLDEN TRUST FINANCIAL SERVICES LTD 16 R.N MUKHERJEE ROAD KOLKATA - 700001 W.B ...........Respondent(s) REVISION PETITION NO. 4702 OF 2013 (Against the Order dated 22/10/2013 in Appeal No. 419/2012 of the State Commission West Bengal) 1. NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD. HOWRAH DIVISION, UNIT NO=- 512200, AT MADHUSUDHAN APARTMENTS, 2ND FLOOR, P-18 DOBSON LANE, HOWRAH - 71101 ...........Petitioner(s) Versus 1. POBITA CHOWDHURY & ANR. WIFE OF LATE SUDEB CHOWDDHURY, VILLAGE & P.O KHASHOKOLE, POLICE STATION-ENGLISH BAZAR, DISTRICT : MALDA W.B 2. GOLDEN TRUST FINANCIAL SERVICES LTD. MALDA BRANCH,RATHBARI, P.O & DISTRICT - MALDA 732101 W.B ...........Respondent(s) REVISION PETITION NO. 4703 OF 2013 (Against the Order dated 09/09/2013 in Appeal No. 920/2012 of the State Commission West Bengal) 1. NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD. HOWRAH DIVISION, UNIT NO-512200, AT MADHUUDHAN APARTMENTS, P-18, DOBSON LANE (2ND FLOOR) HOWRAH - 711101 W.B ...........Petitioner(s) Versus 1. SHANKARI BHUNIA & ANR. W/O LATE SANKAR PRASAD BHUNIA, VILLAGE GOKULPUR, P.O BAR GOKULPUR, P.S KHARAGPUR (LOCAL) DISTRICT : PASCHIM MEDINIPUR W.B 2. DIVISIONAL MANAGER, GOLDEN TUST FINANCIAL SERVICES LYD., DIVISION OFFICE, 16, R.N MUKHERJEE ROAD, KOLKATA - 700 001 W.B ...........Respondent(s) REVISION PETITION NO. 475 OF 2012 (Against the Order dated 15/07/2011 in Appeal No. 414/2010 of the State Commission West Bengal) 1. NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD. Kolkata Divisional Office, Unit No-511700, four Mangoe Lane, Kolkata - 700 001 West Bangal ...........Petitioner(s) Versus 1. BANI HALDAR & ANR. Vill Behrampur PO Kananadi PS Dhaniakhali Hooghly West Bangal 2. The Golden Trust Financila Services, SB Mansion,16 RN Mukherjee Road Kolkata - 700 001 West Bangal 3. The Golden trust Financial Service, - ...........Respondent(s) REVISION PETITION NO. 4807 OF 2013 (Against the Order dated 25/09/2013 in Appeal No. 531/2012 of the State Commission West Bengal) 1. NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD. 4 MANGOE LANE,(2ND FLOOR,) KOLKATA - 700 001 WEST BENGAL ...........Petitioner(s) Versus 1. ALADI BIBI & ANR. MOTHER OF LATE RAKES S.K, VILLAGE & POST OFFICE: MOLLARPUR, (DANGALPARA) POLICE STATION MAYUREWAR, DISTRICT : BIRBHUM WEST BENGAL 2. THE MANAGER, GOLDEN TRUST FINANCIAL SERVICES LTD., 16 R.N MUKHERJEE ROAD, KOLKATA - 700001 W.B ...........Respondent(s) REVISION PETITION NO. 4808 OF 2013 (Against the Order dated 11/11/2013 in Appeal No. 850/2012 of the State Commission West Bengal) 1. NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD. DIVISIONAL OFFICE, UNIT NO-512200, MADHUSUDHAN APARTMENTS, P-18 DOBSON LANE,(2ND FLOOR) HOWRAH - 711101 W.B ...........Petitioner(s) Versus 1. SWATI CHANDRA & ANR. W/O LATE BIDHUDYUTI CHANDA, VILLAGE-BETHUADAHARI, UTTARPARA, (NEAR PATEL SAW MILL) P.O BETHUADAHARI, P.S NAKSHIPARA DISTRICT : NADIA - 741126 W.B 2. GOLDEN TRUST FINANCIAL SERVICES LTD., KRISHNAGAR BRANCH, NEAR CHALLENGE MORE ELECTRONIC MARKET, P.O KRISHNAGAR, P.S KOTWALI, DISTRICT : NADIA - 741101 W.B ...........Respondent(s) REVISION PETITION NO. 499 OF 2012 (Against the Order dated 21/12/2011 in Appeal No. 301/2010 of the State Commission West Bengal) 1. NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD. Kolkata Divisinal Office, Unit No-511700, four Mangoe Lane kolkata - 700 001 West Bangal ...........Petitioner(s) Versus 1. MANIDIPA DUTTA & ANR. W/o Late Sitaram Dutt, kanainatsal DVC Road PO Sreepally Burdwan - 713 103 West Bangal 2. The Golden trust Financial Service, 16 RN Mukherjee Road Kolkatta - 700 001 West Bangal ...........Respondent(s) REVISION PETITION NO. 642 OF 2010 (Against the Order dated 16/06/2009 in Appeal No. 101/2009 of the State Commission West Bengal) 1. NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD. Divisional Office, Kolkata Divisional, Unit - 511700, Four Mangoe Lane Kolkata - 700001 2. THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD. Kharagpur Branch Office, O.T. Road, India, P.O. Kharagpur Paschim Midnapure West Bengal ...........Petitioner(s) Versus 1. VIDYA SAGAR KARAN C/o. Late Vivekananda Karan, Vill - Kashkuli, P.O. Banka, P.S. Chandrakona Paschim Mednipur - 721201 West Bengal 2. GOLDEN TRUST FINANCIAL SERVICES Divisional Office, 16, R. N. Mukherjee Road Kolkata - 700001 West Bengal 3. THE GOLDEN TRUST FINANCIAL SERVICES Branch Office, Battala Chawk, P.O. & Town - Midnapore Paschim Mednipur - 721101 West Bengal ...........Respondent(s) REVISION PETITION NO. 652 OF 2010 (Against the Order dated 01/06/2009 in Appeal No. 164/2009 of the State Commission West Bengal) 1. NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD. Representing The New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Kharagpur Branch at G.T. Road, P.O. Kharagpur (Town) Paschim Medinipur West Bengal ...........Petitioner(s) Versus 1. MAYA RANI RANA & ORS. Village and Post - Biswanathpur, Patna, P.S. Keshpur Paschim Medinipur West Bengal 2. MINOR UTTAM RANA SON OF LATE SHANKAR PRASAD RANA Village and Post - Biswanathpur, Patna, P.S. Keshpur Paschim Medinipur West Bengal 3. MINOR GAUTAM RANA SON OF LATE SHANKAR PRASAD RANA Village and Post - Biswanathpur, Patna, P.S. Keshpur Paschim Medinipur West Bengal 4. BRANCH MANAGER, GOLDEN TRUST FINANCIAL SERVICES Branch Office at Battalachawk, P.O., P.S. & Town: Medinipur Paschim Medinipur - 721101 West Bengal ...........Respondent(s) REVISION PETITION NO. 653 OF 2010 (Against the Order dated 01/06/2009 in Appeal No. 165/2009 of the State Commission West Bengal) 1. NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD. Kharagpur Branch at G.T. Road, P.O. Kharagpur (Town) Paschim Medinipur West Bengal ...........Petitioner(s) Versus 1. RATIKA RANI DEY Village Sultanpur, P.O. Hat-Sultanpur Paschim Medinipur West Bengal 2. BRANCH MANAGER, GOLDEN FINANCIAL SERVICES Branch Office at Battalachawk, P.O., & Town: Medinipur Paschim Medinipur - 721101 West Bengal ...........Respondent(s) REVISION PETITION NO. 687 OF 2014 (Against the Order dated 03/12/2013 in Appeal No. 308/2012 of the State Commission West Bengal) 1. NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD. HOWRAH BRANCH, UNIT NO-512200, MADHUSUDHAN APTS P-18, DOBSONS LANE,(2ND FLOOR,) HOWRAH - 711101 W.B ...........Petitioner(s) Versus 1. MADHOBI DAS & ANR. W/O LATE UTTAM KUMAR DAS R/O C/O NISITH DAS, S/O NANI GOPAL DAS, VILL P.O BIRAMPUR, K.S KALICHALK, DISTRICT : MALDA W.B 2. GOLDEN TRUST FINANCIAL SERVICES LTD., 16 R.N MUKHERJEE ROAD, THROUGH ITS MANAGER KOLKATA - 700 001 W.B ...........Respondent(s) REVISION PETITION NO. 779 OF 2013 (Against the Order dated 10/01/2013 in Appeal No. 08/2012 of the State Commission West Bengal) 1. NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD. I) HOWRAH BRANCH UNIT NO-5212200, " MADHUSUDHAN APTS:, 2ND FLOOR, P-18 DOSBON LANEM ,P.S GOLABARI HOWRAH W.B 2. II) NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD. 877 MAHATMA GANDHI ROAD MUMBAI - 400001 MAHARASTRA ...........Petitioner(s) Versus 1. LAKSHMI DEVI GUPTA & ANR. W/O LATE KISHORE PRASAD GUPTA, R/O ANGUS, P.O ANGUS KHANPUKUE HOOGLY - 712221 W.B 2. THE GOLDEN TRUST FINANCIAL SERVICES 16, R.N MUKHERJEE ROAD, KOLKATA - 700 001 W.B ...........Respondent(s) REVISION PETITION NO. 981 OF 2015 (Against the Order dated 12/02/2015 in Appeal No. 350/2012 of the State Commission West Bengal) 1. NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LTD. & ANR. REPRESENTED BY THE DIV MANAGER, HOWRAH DIV OFFICE 512200, MADHUSUDHAN APARTMENTS,2ND FLOOR, P-18 DOBSON LANE, HOWRAH - 711101 W.B 2. THE BRANCH MANAGER, THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO LTD., MAIDA BRANCH,21/22 RABINDRA AVENUE, P.O & DISTRICT-MAIDA - 732101 W.B ...........Petitioner(s) Versus 1. MANUARA BIBI & ANR. W/O LATE MUSTAK ALI MOMIN, VILLAGE & PO-ALIPUR, P.S KALIACHAK, DISTRICT: MAIDA W.B 2. GOLDEN TRUST FINANCIAL SERVICES LTD., REP BY THE BRANCH MANAGER, GOLDEN TRUST FINANCIAL SERVICES LTD., MAIDA BRANCH .RATHBARI.P.O & DISTRICT: MALDA - 732101 W.B. ...........Respondent(s) REVISION PETITION NO. 998 OF 2015 (Against the Order dated 17/02/2015 in Appeal No. 24/2014 of the State Commission West Bengal) 1. NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD. HOWRAH BRANCH, UNIT NO. 512200 NADHUSUDAN APARTMENTS, P-18 DOBSON LANE, P.S. GOLABARI, HOWRAH 711101 WEST BENGAL 2. . . 3. REGIONAL OFFICE-1 THROUGH MANAGER, 301, R.G. CITY CENTER, 3RD FLOOR, LSC, BLOCK B LAWRANCE ROAD NEW DELHI 110035 ...........Petitioner(s) Versus 1. KANDI LAXMI & ANR. W/O LT. KANDI APPLASWAMY, 6/3, KELVIN LINE, ROOM NO. 214, A.T. ROY ROAD, P.O. TALPUKUR, P.S. TITAGARH, DISTRICT NORTH 24 PARGANA. KOLKATA-700123, 2. MANAGER, FOLDEN TURST FINANCIAL SERVICE LTD., S.B. MANSION, 15 R.N. MUKHERJEE ROAD, KOLKATA - 700 001 ...........Respondent(s) BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D.K. JAIN, PRESIDENT HON'BLE MRS. M. SHREESHA, MEMBER For the Petitioner : As given in the order For the Respondent : As given in the order Dated : 27 Nov 2015 ORDER For the Petitioner Mr. Atul Nanda, Sr. Advocate Mr. Kishore Rawat, Advocate Mr. Parinay T. Vasandani, Advocate Mr. Abhishek Kumar, Advocate in RP/998/2015 Mr. Mohan Babu Agarwal, Advocate in RP/3108/2014 Ms. Usha Nandini V., Advocate Mr. Biju P. Raman, Advocate in RP/3899/2013 Mr. Maibam N. Singh, Advocate in RP/3222/2014, RP/3223/2014 and RP/3273/2014 For the Respondents: Mr. Joy Basu, Sr. Advocate Mr. Abhik K. Dutta, Advocate Mr. Kunal Chatterji, Advocate Mr. Shovan Ghosh, A/R, for Respondent No.2/GTFS in all the RPs Mr. Debojyoti Bhattacharya, Advocate Mr. R.S. Ganguli, A/R, for Respondent No.1 in RP/182/2011 Mr. Asok Chattopadhyay, Advocate for Respondent No.1 in RP/4659/2013 Ms. Usha Nandini V., Advocate Mr. Biju P. Raman, Advocate for Respondent No.1 in RP/4371/2012 Dr. Vijendra Mahndiyan, Advocate Ms. Pallavi Awasthi, Advocate for Respondent No.1 RP/3095/2010, RP/3177/2011, RP/2859/2010, RP/2050/2011, RP/2570/2011, RP/2595/2011, RP/3390/2011, RP/3391/2011, RP/3407/2011, RP/475/2012, RP/499/2012, RP/3790/2012, RP/4372/2012, RP/1848/2013, RP/3276/2013 and RP/2312/2014 Mr. Sanjoy Kumar Ghosh, Advocate Ms. Rupali S. Ghosh, Advocate Mr. Barun Prasad, Advocate for R-1 in RP/4702/2013, RP/3222/2014 and RP/3273/2014 Mr. Siddharth Sengar, Advocate for R-1 in RP/3837/2011 Mr. Ujjwal Banerjee, Advocate for R-1 in RP/2378/2013 Mr. Subhra Saha, Advocate for R-1&2 in RP/1067/2012 Mr. Sanjib Dutta, Advocate Ms. Suparna Sinha, Advocate for R-1 in RP/3178/2011 Mr. Soumya Dutta, Advocate for R-1 in RP/4661/2013 Ms. Poonam Atey, Advocate Mr. Abhinav Singh, Advocate for R-1 in RP/3108/2014 Ms. Sunanda Roy, Advocate for Respondents in RP No. 16/2015 Revision Petition Nos. 642/10, 652/10, 653/10, 3178/11, 475/12, 1067/12, 2480/13, 3899/13, It is pointed out by the Registry that these Revision Petitions in this batch are barred by limitation. The period of delay in filing of these Revision Petitions ranges between 7 days to 1554 days. Since we propose to decide the issue raised in the connected Revision Petitions on merit, we condone the delay in filing of these Revision Petitions subject to the Petitioner Insurance Company depositing a consolidated sum of ₹1,00,000/- in the Consumer Welfare Fund by way of demand draft drawn in favour of PAO, Ministry of Consumer Affairs, New Delhi and a further sum of ₹50,000/- in the Consumer Legal Aid Account.
2. Challenge in this batch of 67 Revision Petitions, preferred by New India Assurance Company Ltd. (for short, "the Insurance Company") under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short "the Act"), is to the various orders passed by the West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission at Kolkata (for short "the State Commission") in its appeals filed against the orders passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kolkata, Unit II (for short, "the District Forum"). By the impugned orders, the State Commission, while affirming the findings recorded by the District Forum except in R.P.No.16/15 wherein complaint was dismissed, has directed the Insurance Company to pay to the Complainants/nominees of the insured, the amounts assured under the Group Insurance policy styled as 'Janata Personal Accident Insurance Policy' (for short, "the JPA").
3. Since, except for the incidents, giving rise to the claims under the policy, the question of law and the grounds on which the claims had not been processed by the Insurance Company in all the cases are similar, these are being disposed of by this common order. However, as agreed to by Learned Counsel for the parties, Revision Petition No. 3095/2010 is being treated as the lead case and the facts of that case are taken as illustrative.
4. One Golden Trust Financial Services (for short, "GTFS"), a partnership firm, was engaged in the business of mobilizing investable funds from the General Public for the Schemes floated by the Unit Trust of India, several Finance Companies and Corporate houses. To increase its business, GTFS offered, as an incentive, to its employees, friends and investors, the benefits under the JPA policy under two heads, viz. mediclaim insurance and Janata Personal Accident Insurance. Two Memorandums of Understanding (for short "the MOU") were executed between GTFS and the Insurance Company on 29.07.1998 and 30.12.1998 respectively for mediclaim and personal accident.
5. As per the MOU, all terms and conditions, including exclusions, as enumerated under the Master Group Janata Personal Accident Insurance Scheme, were to be applicable to the policies to be issued under the JPA, which was to cover GTFS's investors, their family members, field workers and their family members and friends. The present cases relate to the field workers/investors. The insured sums varied from ₹50,000/- to ₹10 lac, covering the period ranging between 1 year to 15 years. Under the MOU, GTFS was obliged to collect premium from the proposers and remit the same to the Insurance Company by a consolidated cheque, every week, with the list of insured persons. Since the covering letter, remitting the insurance premium to the Insurance Company has some bearing and gives a glimpse of the number of policies and the quantum of the amount insured and the premium remitted thereon, one of such letter is extracted below:-
"December 3, 1999 To The Branch Manager The New India Assurance Co. Ltd.
P-18, Dobson Lane Howrah - 1 Dear Sir, Re : J.P.A. Policy (Group) Risk Commence from 23/12/99 We enclose herewith a cheque for Rs.4,76,718/- towards premium group J.P.A. Investors, Field Workers and their family members of Golden Trust Financial Services.
POLICIES SUM INSURED PREMIUM J.P.A. 1 year 2628 policies 6,57,00,000/- 8,213/- J.P.A. 3 yrs. 1458 policies 3,64,50,000/- 9,113/- J.P.A. 5 yrs. 1504 policies 3,76,00,000/- 14,100/- J.P.A. 7 yrs. 728 policies 1,82,00,000/- 9,100/- J.P.A. 9 yrs. 220 policies 55,00,000/- 3,438/- J.P.A.10 yrs. 1288 policies 3,22,00,000/- 22,138/- J.P.A.12 yrs. 80 policies 20,00,000/- 1,625/- J.P.A.14 yrs. 166 policies 41,50,000/- 3,891/- J.P.A.15 yrs. 16204 policies 40,51,00,000/- 4,05,100/- List enclosed herewith." (Emphasis added)
6. On receipt of the premium from GTFS in respect of the persons named in the list, annexed with identical covering letters, the Insurance Company used to acknowledge the receipt of premium amount, running into lakhs of rupees and issue certificates in the name of individual insured persons under the JPA, covering the risk of accidental death/loss of limbs/permanent total disablement to the extent of insured amount. The relevant portion of the certificate, so issued reads as under :-
" This is to certify that as per the proposal and declarations submitted to the company and subject terms, conditions, exclusions, definitions of Group Janata Personal Accident Insurance Policy of the Company.
Mr./Ms. Amal Kumar Podder, Age : 45 650, Purba Sinthi, Madhugar, Calcutta - 700 030
is covered under Policy No. (s) 4751170000001/4751170030027 issued in the name of Golden Trust Financial Services.
From 01/12/2000 to 30/11/2015 (Midnight) Risk covered : Accidental death/loss of limbs/permanent total disablement for an overall capital sum insured of Rs.3,00,000.00 Name of Nominee & Address: Mukti Podder, 650, Purba Sinthi, Madhugar, Calcutta-700 030 Relationship : Wife Benefits, important terms, conditions, exclusions, definitions are printed overleaf. " (Emphasis supplied)
7. It seems that having noticed certain irregularities in the working of the Scheme, the General Insurance Corporation of India (for short, "the GIC"), as the Regulator, reviewed the Group JPA and took a decision to define and restrict the groups in different categories. Perhaps, acting on the advice of GIC, the Insurance Company issued a letter, dated 07.05.99, to the GTFS cancelling the MOU. The said communication was challenged by GTFS by way of a Writ Petition, being No. 1144 of 1999 (Golden Trust Services & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors.) in the High Court of Calcutta. The said Writ Petition was resisted by the Insurance Company mainly on the ground that in the category of "friends", the benefit of JPA was being given by GTFS indiscriminately to the public at large and that there was no concept of a group. By an interim order, dated 06.07.1999, the High Court of Calcutta restrained GTFS from collecting any premium from the category of "friends" from the date of the said order.
8. Subsequently, the Insurance Company took a policy decision to discontinue the long term JPA policies and to limit the sum assured at ₹1 lakh and the period of insurance to five years. Consequently, by its letter dated 01.08.2002, the Insurance Company cancelled the long term JPA policies of more than one lakh and period of insurance for more than five years. Assailing the said communication, GTFS again moved the Hon'ble High Court of Calcutta by filing a Writ Petition, being CW No. 2343 of 2002 (Golden Trust Financial Services & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors.). Relying on an earlier order, dated 30.10.2005, passed in another Writ Petition (No. 22175/1999) the said Writ Petition was disposed of on 16.03.2006, by a Bench headed by Hon'ble Mr. Justice Pinaki Chandra Ghosh (as his Lordship then was) inter-alia, directing the Insurance Company to decide all the pending claims on merits, preferably within a period of 6 months, in accordance with law.
9. In furtherance of the directions by the Hon'ble High Court, the Insurance Company addressed letter dated 07.03.2006/06.06.2006 (in the lead case), to GTFS, which reads as follows:-
"Date: 07.03.2006
06.06.2006 M/s. Golden Trust Financial Services, 16, R.N. Mukherjee Road, Kolkata-700 001 Dear Sir, Re.: JPA Claim : 511700/47/05/00018 Under Policy No. : 4751170000001/4751170030027 Policy period : 01.12.2000 - 30.11.2015 Insured : Late Amal Kumar Podder The above claim has been lodged on us under the Group Janata Personal Accident Insurance Policy issued in favour of you as principal insured. Along with other statutory documents/ confirmations, you are requested to submit evidence/certification in regard to the above mentioned insured whether he/she is your investor/agent/staff member. Please furnish details of investment particulars with document if the insured is your investor. If he/she is your Agent or Staff Member please furnish his/her Agency/Staff details etc. along with copy of your official record for our proceeding the claim. The above is required to honour the order of Hon'ble Calcutta High Court.
Please submit the above at the earliest. (Emphasis supplied)
10. Seemingly, there was no response from GTFS to the said communication. Therefore, having failed to elicit any positive response from the Insurance Company on her claim, the Complainant in the lead case (R.P.No.3095 of 2010 - Smt. Mukti Poddar) approached the Insurance Ombudsman, Kolkata, under the provisions of Redressal of Public Grievances Rules, 1998, complaining about the delay in settlement of the death claim preferred by her. Referring to the interim orders and the final order dated 16.03.2006, passed in Writ Petition No. 2343 of 2002, vide order, dated 13.06.2007, the Insurance Ombudsman directed the Complainant to submit the documents as sought for by the Insurance Company to facilitate processing of the claim. Pursuant to the said direction, on demand by the Complainant, GTFS issued the following certificate to her:-
"TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN " This is to certify that Sri Amal Kumar Podder, the Insured Person under Insurance Certificate No.01103418/000100019103 valid from 01.12.2000 to 30.11.2015 issued by the New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Calcutta Division Unit: 511700, 4, Mangoe Lane, Kolkata-700 001, was one of our Field Workers."
11. The Complainant submitted the said certificate to the Insurance Company, who, vide its letter dated 19.07.2007, informed the Complainant that the said certificate will not be taken into consideration as a valid documentary evidence of the insured's relationship with GTFS, stating thus:-
" According to the Kolkata Ombudsman order dated 13.06.2007, you are hereby requested to submit documentary evidence of the Field Worker, such as Original Photo Identity Card of Field Worker of GTFS, Performance Reports as Field Worker of GTFS, Agency License etc. We have received a certificate dated 11.06.2007 issued by GTFS as a Field Worker of Late Amal Kumar Poddar submitted by you on the same date.
This certificate will not be taken into consideration as valid documentary evidence of Field Worker of GTFS by us as, GTFS have issued several Identity Cards for their Field Workers which we have received from different JPA claims from the Claimant and we have settled such claims forthwith. That means, GTFS issued such Photo Identity Cards for their Valid Field Workers, other Certificate holders are all General Public, which please note. We have also received Performance Reports as Field Workers of GTFS from several claimants. You are requested to submit the same otherwise, we shall repudiate the claim according to non-compliance of the Ombudsman Order. GTFS is presently issuing several numbers of the Field Workers Certificates for such JPA Certificate holder unlawfully without producing the detail data and documentary evidence of the said Field Workers. It is the duty of the Principal Insured (GTFS) to prove with the documentary evidence of the Field Workers for settlement of such JPA claims for all certificate holders as we have issued such Insurance to the Field Workers and Investors of the GTFS and their family members, but not issued to the General Public, which please note. Violation of Agreement of the "MOU" signed between the New India Assurance Co. Ltd. and GTFS is illegal and therefore claim is void as per preview of condition of the said "MOU" and also policy condition of the JPA as stated in the said "MOU". Besides, as the Hon'ble Justice of Kolkata High Court, Mr. Pinaki Chandra Ghosh passed an award dated 16.03.2006 directed to our company to settle the claim on Merit according to the law. We would request you to comply our requirement as stated herein above within 15 days from date of receiving of this letter otherwise we repudiate the claim for non-compliance of the documents as Field Worker." (Emphasis supplied)
12. Aggrieved by the said communication, the Complainant filed complaint before the District Forum seeking a direction to the Insurance Company to pay the assured sum along with interest, compensation and costs.
13. In its written version, although the complaint was contested on diverse grounds, but the main ground on which the claim was resisted reads as follows:-
" The law is well settled that impossibility to render service do not tantamount to deficiency in service. If the insurance company for non-submission of appropriate documents cannot consider an insurance claim then the same cannot be said to be deficiency in service. It was incumbent upon the claimant as well as the GTFS to establish the status of the claimant by way of documentary evidence to establish that they do not fall under category "friends". Being the category, barred by the Hon'ble High Court, Calcutta. Submission of documentary evidence was condition precedent for due consideration of a claim." (Emphasis supplied) It was pleaded that the Complainant be directed to submit the identify card of field worker, appointment letter, income proof and cash receipt of actual amount deposited with GTFS and then with Insurance Company.
14. The stand of GTFS, in its written version, was that in terms of the MOU the JPA Policies were issued to its investors, their family members, field workers, family members and friends. It was, however, pleaded that under the MOU its obligation was confined to collect the premium from the proposers and remit the same to the Insurance Company, and nothing more.
15. Being satisfied with the material placed on record by the Complainant, the District Forum allowed the complaint and directed the Insurance Company to pay to the Complainant the assured amount of ₹3,00,000/- along with ₹5,000/- and 1,000/- towards compensation and costs respectively, observing thus:-
"On perusal of the materials on record with reference to the pleadings of the parties the Forum finds that the documents produced by the complainant regarding the status of the deceased policy holders appear to be sufficient. Further, the GTFS by an affidavit stated before this Forum that the deceased policy holder was their field worker. So, there remains no doubt as to the identity of the deceased policy holder as field worker of the GTFS. For the said reason, the letter of repudiation issued by the OP/Insurance Company dated 19.07.2007 asking further document regarding the status appears to be not bonafide and on that ground it must he held that the OP/Insurance Company committed deficiency in service." (Emphasis supplied)
16. Dissatisfied with the said direction, the Insurance Company filed the Appeal before the State Commission. Concurring with the District Forum, the State Commission has held that it is not the case of the insurance company that the insured did not pay the premium, so it can be said that the Insurance Company received the premium amount from the GTFS in respect of the policy and admittedly issued the policy. As and when the insurance company issued a certificate being satisfied with the status of the insured, it cannot challenge the status further at the stage when the claim was filed before the Company by the Complainant or Claimant, after the death of the insured. It has observed that after lodgement of the claim, the Complainant was asked by the Insurance Company to submit his status report before it whether the insured deceased was a Field Worker attached with GTFS or not. The Complainant complied with the said request and obtained a certificate from the GTFS and sent it to the Insurance Company, but unfortunately the Insurance Company did not accept the said document. According to the State Commission, the Insurance Company knowing very well that the insured belonged to the category of Field Worker of the GTFS was harassing the Complainant intentionally, which is an example of deficiency in service on their part. Accordingly, the State Commission has dismissed the appeal. Similarly, in the appeals filed by some of the Complainants, the dismissal orders passed by the District Forum in their Complaints, on the ground that the policy was obtained by suppression of facts, have been set aside by the State Commission with a direction to the Insurance Company to settle their claims.
17. Hence, the present petitions.
18. We have heard Learned Counsel appearing for the Insurance Company, GTFS and some of the Complainants at considerable length and perused the documents, briefly referred to/extracted above.
19. In his opening submissions, Mr. Atul Nanda, Learned Senior Counsel, appearing for the Insurance Company strenuously urged that the Insurance Company is empowered to seek information about the identity of the insured vis-à-vis GTFS, at the time of processing of the claim not only under Condition No. 2 of the Terms, Conditions and Exclusions Definitions of the Master JPA policy, but also under the general principles governing a contract of Insurance relating to Insurable interest of the claimant under the policy. It was asserted that asking for such information cannot, by any stretch of imagination, be construed as "deficiency" in service as contemplated in Section 2(1) (g) of the Act. Since the stand of the Insurance Company was that except for the afore-extracted covering letter forwarding a consolidated cheque for the premium collected along with the list containing the name of the Insured, no other document was received from GTFS, on a pointed query as to why before issuing the policy, the Insurance Company did not ask for the proposal form as the specimen form placed on record by GTFS contains columns for disclosure of personal details and even declaration regarding pre-existing disease, etc. of the proposer, Mr. Kishore Rawat, appearing for the Insurance Company, stated that as a general practice, such information is asked for only at the time when a claim under the policy is preferred. It was argued that the above-extracted Insurance Certificate only certified that the person named therein was covered under the policy issued in the name of GTFS and was not an absolute Certificate of Insurance, as it was subject to terms and conditions of the Master policy. In support of the proposition that the Claimant was bound to satisfy the Insurance Company about his/her relationship with GTFS, Condition No. 2 of the terms, conditions and exclusions contained in the Master Policy, was pressed into service, which reads as follows:-
"Proof satisfactory to the Company shall be furnished of all matters upon which a claim is based. Any medical or other agent of the Company shall be allowed to examine the person of the insured on the occasion of any alleged injury or disablement when and so often as the same may reasonably be required on behalf of the Company and in the event of death, to make a post-mortem examination of the body of the insured, and such evidence as the Company may from time to time require (indicating a post-mortem examination, if necessary) shall be furnished within the space of fourteen days after demand in writing and in the event of a claim in respect of loss of sight the insured shall undergo at the insurer's expense such operation or treatment as the Company may reasonably deem desirable. Provided that in the case of a claim by death or permanent total disablement all sums payable only on the delivery of this Policy cancelled and discharged."
20. It was vehemently contended that the requirement to establish satisfactorily the status of the Insurance with GTFS flowed from above-noted condition. In short, the submission was that the finding of both the Forums below to the effect that in view of the afore-extracted certificate, issued by GTFS, the identity/status of the Insured stood established and non-processing of their claims by Insurance Company amounted to deficiency in service, was vitiated as the afore-noted Condition No. 2 was not taken into consideration.
21. Per contra, Mr. Joy Basu, Learned Senior Counsel, appearing for GTFS, while supporting the decisions of the Fora below, submitted that in view of a number of decisions of the High Court of Calcutta, on identical set of facts, the issues raised in the Revision Petitions stand concluded in favour of the Complainants. In support of the contention, he has heavily relied on the following decisions of the High Court of Calcutta: (i) Order dated 22.04.2010 in Manoranjan Mukherjee Vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. & Ors. (WP No. 13359 (W) of 2008), whereby the Insurance Company was directed to settle the claim of a similarly situated Writ Petitioner on the basis of certificate issued by GTFS, extracted in para 5 (supra), without raising any further query; (ii) Order dated 19.01.2011, in C.A.N. 6418/2010, wherein it was recorded that the Insurance Company had agreed to pay the full assured amount of ₹5 lacs, with a caveat that the order shall not be treated as a precedent for any other matter and (iii) Order dated 14.03.2005 in Bimal Chandra Vs. Regional Manager, New India Assurance Co. Ltd. & Ors. (WP No. 17808 (W) of 2004). In the last decision, rejecting the plea of the Insurance Company that neither any information had been given nor records had been produced to prove that the Insured victim was a field worker of GTFS, and as such the claim could not be settled, the High Court has held that in the light of the affidavit filed by GTFS, it was satisfied that the Insured was covered under the policy. Accordingly, it has directed the Insurance Company to settle the claim. It was stated that the claim in the aforenoted cases have since been settled. It was asserted that these decisions are on all fours to the facts at hand in all the cases and therefore, the Revision Petitions merit dismissal. In support of the submissions that status of the Insured should have been ascertained before issuing the policies; the terms of a policy are to be construed strictly and that the decision of the High Court in Bimal Chandra (supra) acts as Res-Judicata, reliance was placed on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, respectively in United India Co. Ltd. Vs. Harchand Rai Chandan Lal (2004) 8 SCC 644; Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Mantora Oil Products Pvt. Ltd. (2000) 10 SCC 26 and M. Nagabhushana Vs. State of Karnataka & Ors. (2011) 3 SCC 408.
22. Appearing for a number of Complainants, Dr. Vijendra Mahndiyan submitted that the insured being mere facilitators for arranging funds for GTFS, were not supposed to collect any money on its behalf. It was stated that they were working as Field Workers under an oral arrangement. It was strenuously urged that having accepted the proposals submitted by GTFS in respect of all the proposers named in the list attached with covering letter and acknowledged in the Insurance Certificate in terms as "This is to certify that as per the proposal and declarations submitted to the Company" a valid contract had come into existence and therefore, demand for any additional information/document at the time of processing of the claim was wholly unjustified. It was also asserted that the policies in question having been issued after 06.07.1999, i.e. after the order passed by the High Court, restraining GTFS from collecting premium from "Friends", on the plea of the Insurance Company that GTFS had been issuing JPA policies indiscriminately to all and sundry, yet the Insurance Company did not think it advisable to even ask for the proposal forms and scrutinize those proposals, which were received after the said date, more so, when on its own showing, the Insurance Company was aware of misuse of the JPA Scheme. It was pleaded that under these circumstances, apart from the fact that the Insurance Company cannot be permitted to take advantage of its own wrong, the doctrines of equitable estoppal and waiver were also attracted against it. Learned counsel also pointed out that in the written version the Insurance Company has not questioned the authenticity of the certificates issued by GTFS, but has found them to be insufficient.
23. Ms. Sunanda Roy, Ld. Counsel appearing for the Complainant in RP No. 16/2015, adopting the afore-noted submissions made on behalf of other Complainants, also referred to a letter dated 21.04.1999, issued by the General Manager of the Insurance Company at its Head Office in Mumbai, to all the Regional Offices, regarding Group Discount in respect of "Group JPA and Group Medical Policy" for the purpose of availing group discount and other benefits. In the said communication, clearly identifying the categories falling in the group policies, the Regional Offices were advised to obtain the approval and acceptance of the Market Committee in a case a particular group proposal did not clearly fall under any of the enumerated categories. The submission was that in view of the said binding instructions, the Branch concerned was required to scrutinize all the group policies, for which purpose, particulars of each of the proposers had to be with the Insurance Company. If GTFS had not sent the particulars of the insured, as alleged, and yet the policies were issued, Section 45 of the Insurance Act was clearly attracted. Relying on National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Swaran Singh & Ors. (2004) 3 SCC 297, it was urged that the onus to prove that the Complainant was not a field worker lay on the Insurance Company, which it has failed to discharge.
24. In the rejoinder, Mr. Rawat submitted that the claim in the case of Manoranjan Mukherjee (supra) was settled because in that case policy was issued before fresh instructions had been issued by GIC on 21.04.1999. Lastly, while pointing out that GTFS had been retaining substantial portion of the premium collected by it from the proposers and as a matter of fact in one of the cases even more than 50%, by not furnishing the requisite information/documents in respect of each of the Complainants, there were cases of composite negligence and therefore, in the event of the Insurance Company failing in these cases, proportionate liability towards the claims in question should also be fastened on GTFS.
25. In light of the aforestated factual matrix, the core question for determination, in all these cases, is whether having accepted the proposals with premium, forwarded by GTFS, and issued the policies, the Insurance Company is justified in not accepting the claims in question on the ground that credentials of the insured as "field workers/investors" of GTFS have not been established?
26. At the outset, it is relevant to note that as per the information furnished during the course of hearing, under the said MOU, the Insurance Company had issued over 12 lac policies and had collected over ₹16 crores as premium, remitted to it by GTFS. In the present 67 cases, the policies were issued after the interim order had been passed by the High Court of Calcutta on 06.07.1999, inter-alia, restraining GTFS from collecting premium from the "friends". The total number of similar claims in dispute involving insured amount between ₹50,000/- to ₹5,00,000/- was stated to be 110.
27. We shall now examine the rival stands bearing in mind the fundamental principle of Insurance law that a contract of insurance is based on utmost faith - uberrimae fidei, applicable to parties to the contract, as also the general proposition that since the facts upon which, the contract of insurance has to be entered into, are ordinarily in the knowledge of the insured, he is bound to disclose them fully and truly. The Insurer proceeds upon confidence that the insured would not keep back any facts or circumstances in his knowledge to mislead the insurer. If, concealment of a material fact, which ought to have been disclosed, but was not disclosed at the time of submitting the proposal, is established, the policy would be void and the Insurer would be within its rights to repudiate the claim based on the policy.
28. At this juncture, we may also note that since the stand of the Insurance Company has been that except for the cheque for the consolidated amount, collected as premium during the week and the list of the proposers, no other document had been received by it from GTFS and the stand of the GTFS was that all duly filled proposal forms had been forwarded to the Insurance Company, vide order dated 04.06.2015, we had directed the Insurance Company to furnish the following information:
"... we direct GTFS to file an affidavit stating as to which documents were forwarded to the Insurance Company at the time of taking insurance certificate in respect of the insured members, as we find from the certificate (Pg. 7 of the Convenience Volume) that there is a reference to submission of the "Proposal and Declarations" by GTFS with the Insurance Company. The proof of filing the said documents with the Insurance Company shall also be filed along with the affidavit, to be filed by the Managing Partner of the GTFS. Requisite affidavit shall be filed within 3 weeks with an advance copy to learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company. The Insurance Company shall respond to the said affidavit, to be filed by its Regional Manager, 2 weeks thereafter."
29. Pursuant to the said order, the Insurance Company has filed an affidavit, wherein it is stated that as per the MOU, each individual insured had to fill up a proposal form in the format provided by the Insurer, furnishing the requisite information and declarations; each of the field workers and their family members had gone through his mandatory pre-requisite condition of furnishing all declarations and duly filled up proposal forms designed exclusively for proposals under JPA; on receipt of the proposal form, the Insurance Company had conducted its own internal due diligence exercise and assessed the credibility of the proposer before accepting the proposal and consequently issuing the certificate of Insurance to the concerned individual. It is asserted that the fact that the certificate of Insurance issued itself recites "the declaration and submission of the proposal form" it can be safely inferred that the Insurance Company was fully satisfied with the status of the proposer, otherwise it would not have issued the Insurance certificates. It is also averred that it is a common practice of universal application that after the proposal form along with declaration is received by the Insurance Company, it becomes the repository of all these documents and insured is not expected to retain copies of such documents. However, pertinently, the affidavit is conspicuously silent about the dates on which these declarations were sent to the Insurance Company.
30. Having bestowed our anxious consideration to the matter, we are constrained to observe that these are classic cases, where the nominees/ beneficiaries under the policies in question are caught in the cross fire between the Insurance Company and GTFS. It is evident that at the relevant time, for both of them, the prime consideration for entering into the aforestated two MOUs was the profit motive and not the spirit and object of the said group Insurance Policies. These observations are based on the admitted facts that on these policies, the Insurance Company earned a hefty premium of over ₹16 crores. Further, it was also brought to our notice that while remitting a consolidated amount towards premium to the Insurance Company, GTFS used to retain a substantial part of the premium recovered by it from the proposers, purportedly as service charges. To bring home the point, Mr. Rawat, Learned Counsel appearing for the Insurance Company invited our attention to a document, which shows that in the case of one of proposers; namely Jeewan Yadav, out of a sum of ₹380/- collected as premium from him, only a sum of ₹110/- was actually remitted to the Insurance Company. In the absence of any denial coming from the side of GTFS, on this aspect, it can safely be presumed that GTFS would have earned much more than ₹16 crores on the policies issued under the MOU.
31. Bearing in mind the above background, we advert to the main contention urged on behalf of the Insurance Company that before settling the claim, it is always open to the Insurer to satisfy itself, as to whether the information furnished by a proposer, at the time of obtaining the policy, was correct or he had concealed some material fact, disentitling him from the claim under the policy. As noted above, the stand of the Insurance Company is that it had not received any proposal forms from the Insured/from GTFS and all the policies were issued merely on receipt of the cheque for the premium collected and the list of names of the proposers who had paid the premium. We are unable to appreciate how in the absence of the proposal forms, the Insurance Company was issuing the Insurance Certificates with endorsement that "this is to certify that as per the proposal and declarations submitted by the Company". Though it is true that all the facts being in the knowledge of the insurer, he is obliged to disclose the same fully and truly but, except for the cases at hand, we have not come across any case where an Insurance Company has issued a policy without even asking for the proposal form. In our opinion, therefore, having issued lakhs of policies on the basis of what was stated by GTFS in their covering letters, the Insurance Company is estopped from resiling from its earlier position and reject the aforenoted certificates issued by GTFS, certifying that the insured was its field worker/investor. It is significant to note that it has never been the case of the Insurance Company that GTFS has played fraud with it by forwarding the names of some fictitious persons. We are aghast with the conduct of the Insurance Company and its functionaries that having been warned by GIC about the alleged malpractices by the indiscriminate use of the JPA Scheme by GTFS, which led to filing of Writ Petitions, the Insurance Company did not think it proper to scrutinize the fresh proposals and continued to adopt the same old practice of issuing policies on the strength of the same very covering letters of GTFS it was doing earlier, even after the interim order dated 07.05.1999 was passed by the High Court of Calcutta in W.P.No.1144/99, restraining GTFS from collecting premium from "friends". Undoubtedly, it was an act of gross negligence or connivance on the part of the Insurance Company and its functionaries. Therefore, in the absence of the proposal forms, at this stage, the Insurance Company cannot be heard to say that the declarations relating to the status of the insured vis-à-vis GTFS, which GTFS claims to have been obtaining from the proposers, were false. We are of the opinion that now at this belated stage the Insurance Company cannot be permitted to take advantage of its own wrong, to the detriment of the Complainants/nominees under the policies in question. Having consciously played with the fire, it cannot complain of burnt fingers. At the cost of repetition, we deem it necessary to emphasis that if an insured is expected to read, understand the terms and conditions of the policy and disclose truly and fully all the information sought for in the proposal form, before entering into the insurance contract, the insurer or its agent is equally obliged to carefully examine the proposal and if some information or document is lacking, it must be obtained from the proposer at the threshold. It is quite possible that the information/document sought for, which could be furnished by the proposer at the time of submission of the proposal may not be within the knowledge of the nominee/beneficiary after the demise of the insured.
32. In so far as the contention of Learned Counsel for the Insurance Company to the effect that condition no. 2 in the Master Policy, extracted above, enables the Insurance Company to require the nominee/Complainant to prove the status of the Insured, is concerned, the submission is stated to be rejected. A bare reading of the said condition shows that the proof to the satisfaction of the Insurance Company has to be furnished "on matters upon which claim is based." It is plain that what is required to be furnished is the particulars and proof of the incident on giving rise to the cause of action for preferring the claim under the policy.
33. We are also in complete agreement with the submission made on behalf of Complainants that the issue raised in these petitions, formulated above, stands concluded in their favour by the aforenoted decisions of the Calcutta High Court, in particular, by the judgment dated 14.03.2005 rendered in Bimal Chandra (supra), wherein on identical set of facts, the High Court has held as follows:-
"14. The objection regarding coverage of the Insurance police in respect of the victim on the ground of non-furnishing the documents disclosing the status of the victim by the respondent, Golden Trust Financial Service also cannot be sustained as the said Golden Trust Financial Services by filing affidavit and annexing relevant documents has specifically submitted that the victim Bapi Chandra was a field worker of the Golden Trust Financial Services. Furthermore, the respondent Golden Trust Financial Service has specifically mentioned in the affidavit that the son of the petitioner was covered "under the Certificate of Insurance" issued to him and it has also been mentioned in the said affidavit that the factum of death of the insured person as well as the reason behind such death has been established after proper examination of the documents.
15. The issuance of the insurance policy in favour of the victim has also not been disputed by the respondent, the New India Assurance Company Limited. As a matter of fact, the insurance policy certificate issued in the name of the victim Bapi Chandra, the son of the petitioner has been annexed with the affidavit -in-opposition filed on behalf of the respondent Insurance Company.
16. Having heard learned Counsel appearing for the parties and scrutinizing the averments made in the affidavits filed on behalf of the respective parties and further scrutinizing the available records produced before this Court in connection with this proceeding, I am satisfied that the victim is undisputedly covered under the policy and furthermore, the petitioner herein has fulfilled all the conditions for settlement of the claim and payment of the insured money in terms of the Insurance Policy Certificate."
34. That takes us to the residual submission made by Mr. Rawat, Ld. Counsel for the Insurance Company that in case the view taken by both the Forums below is affirmed by this Commission, then GTFS should also be made liable to share the amount of compensation payable under the subject policies. It was urged that non-furnishing of complete information by GTFS to the Insurance Company as also the documentary evidence, as sought for by us, vide order dated 04.06.2015, in order to demonstrate that proposal forms had been duly forwarded to the Insurance Company, these are cases of composite negligence. Having regard to the fact that despite our specific direction, GTFS has failed to furnish even semblance of material in support of the said plea, the contention of the Learned Counsel deserves to be accepted. We are amazed at the categorical statement made by Mr. Joy Basu, Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the GTFS, on instructions, that the firm does not possess any kind of record, pertaining to the present Complainants, except the code numbers allotted to the insured and mentioned in the list of names sent to the Insurance Company. Such a statement by a Concern earning crores of rupees only from the JPA policies under the said MOUs, is beyond our comprehension and carries little conviction. However, bearing in mind the fact that in its written version, filed in opposition to the Complaint, the Insurance Company has not levelled any allegation of fraud, connivance, etc. against GTFS, we refrain from commenting on its conduct, except to observe that it is wholly blameworthy. We find it hard to believe that for transactions of high magnitude, GTFS did not preserve any record, more so, when some allegations regarding abuse of the JPA Scheme were levelled against it in the High Court of Calcutta by the Insurance Company as far back as in the year 1999. We are convinced that these are cases of composite negligence on the part of the Insurance Company and GTFS. It is on account of this composite negligence that the nominees of the insured are suffering. Nevertheless, at this juncture, we do not have sufficient evidence on record to determine the extent of negligence on the part of GTFS so as to bifurcate the amounts payable under the policies. Therefore, under the circumstances, we hold that liability to pay the amounts in terms of the order passed by the Fora below, to the Complainants before us will be joint and several on the Insurance Company and GTFS. It will be open to the Complainants to enforce the orders in their favour against both or any of them.
35. In view of the aforegoing discussion, we do not find any jurisdictional error in the impugned orders, holding the Insurance Company deficient in not processing the claims of the Complainants, warranting interference in our limited revisional jurisdiction. (See : Rubi (Chandra) Dutta Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. - (2011) 11 SCC 269). Resultantly, save and except to the extent of our finding on composite negligence, all the Revision petitions fail and are dismissed accordingly. The Complainants, represented before us, shall be entitled to costs, quantified at ₹20,000/- in each of the cases, which shall be paid to them by the Insurance Company and GTFS in equal proportion, within two weeks of the receipt of a copy of this order.
......................J D.K. JAIN PRESIDENT ...................... M. SHREESHA MEMBER