State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Branch Manager, The New India Assurance ... vs Smt. Anita Nag,Wife Of Late Pratap ... on 18 December, 2013
State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission West Bengal 11A, MIRZA GHALIB STREET KOLKATA 700 087 S.C. CASE NO FA /552/2013 (Arisen out of Order Dated 05/04/2013 in Case No.CC/61/2012 of District Jalpaiguri, Jalpaiguri DF,) DATE OF FILING :22.05.2013 DATE OF ORDER:
18.12.2013 APPELLANT : 1. Branch Manager, The New India Assurance Company Ltd., Vivekananda Bipanan Kendra, Racecoursepara, P.S. Kotwali, Post & Dist.-Jalpaiguri, PIN-735101 RESPONDENTS : 1. Smt. Anita Nag, Wife of Late Pratap Sankar Nag, Barobisha, Jalpaiguri, Present address C/o Sankar Das, Jyotsna Medical Hall, Birpara Chowpathi, P.S. & Post- Birpara, Dist.-Jalpaiguri.
2. The Branch Manager, Golden Trust Financial Services, Branch Office College Halt Post & P.S.-Alipurduar PIN-736121.
BEFORE HONBLE MEMBER :
Sri Debasis Bhattacharya.
HONBLE MEMBER : Sri Jagannath Bag.
FOR THE APPELLANT :
Mr. Pralay kar, Ld. Advocate FOR THE RESPONDENT No.1 : Mr.Rajtilak Ghoshal, Ld. Advocate FOR THE RESPONDENT No.2 : Mr.Avik Dutta, Ld. Advocate Sri Debasis Bhattacharya , Member Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the judgment dated 05.04.2013 passed by the Ld. District Forum, Jalpaiguri in Case No. 61/2012, the OP No.2 thereof has preferred this appeal.
By the impugned judgment, the Ld. District Forum has allowed the case on contest against the OP No.2 with cost of Rs.2,000/- (Rupees two thousand) and dismissed on contest against the OP No.1 without cost. The OP Nos. 2 has been directed to pay the entire sum assured of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees five lakhs) in favour of the Complainant within one month from the date of the judgment. The OP No.2 has also been directed to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand) for compensation for deficiency in service and another sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand) as compensation for mental agony and harassment. The OP No.2 has further been directed to liquidate the entire amount within one month from this date failing which the Complainant will be at liberty to recover the said amount along with interest @ 10% p.a. to be calculated on and from the date of filing of this case till recovery of the entire dues by filing a separate proceeding against the OP No.2 as per provision of law.
The case of the Complainant is that her husband, Pratap Sankar Nag was holder of a Jananta Personal Accident Insurance Policy being No. 4751230100472/4751230130233 of the OP No.2, for the period from 23.08.2001 to 22.08.2016, of a sum assured of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees five lakhs). On 02.02.2006, in the evening, when he was returning home by his scooter, he was injured by a truck on the road near Nangdala Railway Gate and was taken to Anandolok Hospital and Neuro Science Centre, Siliguri, where he died on
03.02.2006. On it, Bhaktingar P.S. U/D Case No. 20/06 dated 03.02.2006 and Birpara P.S. Case No. 89/06 were instituted. Thereafter, on 07.04.2006, the Complainant informed the matter to the OPs and the OP No.2 issued claim form which was submitted on 29.04.2006. But, thereafter the OPs remained silent and did not settle the claim. Accordingly, the case.
On the other hand, the case of the OP New India Assurance Co. Ltd. is that neither G.T.F.S. nor the Claimant provided documentary proof regarding the status of the Certificateholder, i.e., Fieldworker, who is employed to procure business from the market by enlisting investors, etc., and earns remunerations from the G.T.F.S. So, there was no deficiency in service on its part.
The case of the OP G.T.F.S. is supportive of the case of the Complainant.
It is to be considered if the impugned judgment suffers from any kind of anomaly so as to make an interference in this appeal.
Decision with reasons.
Ld. Advocate for the Appellant has submitted that it has been taken as a ground for appeal that the deceased husband of the Complainant was a Government employee, who was employed as Gram Panchayat Secretary under the Directorate of Panchayat & Rural Development, Govt. of West Bengal and the Investigators report also revealed that the Complainant is drawing Family Pension due to the death of her husband from the Govt. of West Bengal, which is reflected also in the F.I.R. before the O.C., Birpara P.S., Jalpaiguri. Accordingly, the deceased cannot be a Fieldworker of the G.T.F.S., being a Government employee. As such, the benefit does not accrue in his favour, nor to his nominee. The policy is thus void abinitio. He has thus assailed the impugned judgment.
Ld. Advocate for the Respondent No.1 has submitted that this is a Group Insurance Policy obtained through the G.T.F.S., on the basis of documents given at the time of taking policy, and thereby the deceased became entitled to the policy. He had no knowledge of the MoU between the Insurance Company and G.T.F.S. He has supported the impugned judgment.
Ld. Advocate for the Respondent No.2 has submitted that duly filled in proposal form was submitted by the deceased and the premium was paid by him, which could have been rejected by refunding the premium. After the certificate was granted to the deceased, the Insurance Company cannot stand in the way of settling the claim and debarred under the doctrine of estoppel. It was a genuine contingency, which was blocked by the Insurance Company. The deceased was performing his duties as a Fieldworker of the G.T.F.S. He has relied upon a decision of the Honble Calcutta High Court, as reported in 2005 (3) CHN 154. He has also supported the impugned judgment.
There is no denying of the fact that the deceased was working as s Secretary of Gram Panchayat under the Directorate of Panchayat & Rural Development, Govt. of West Bengal. His such status debar him from performing another job outside, which in this case being Fieldworker of the G.T.F.S. There is no document showing sanction to work as Fieldworker of the G.T.F.S, issued by the Govt. of West Bengal in his favour. As such, he cannot at all be termed as a Fieldworker of the G.T.F.S. so as to come within the purview of the benefits of the Group Janata Personal Accident Insurance Policy. Accordingly, the claim of the Complainant cannot sustain. The finding of the Ld. District Forum to the effect that it is to be presumed that the OPs have considered his status as Fieldworker cannot stand. Accordingly, the impugned judgment is bad in law and on facts.
In the result, the appeal succeeds.
Hence, ORDERED that the appeal be and the same is allowed on contest against the Respondents, but without any cost. The impugned judgment is hereby set aside. Consequently, the complaint case stands dismissed.
MEMBER MEMBER