State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Smt. Urmila Shill Sharma & Another on 7 June, 2012
State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
West Bengal
BHABANI BHAVAN
(GROUND FLOOR)
31, BELVEDERE ROAD,
ALIPORE
KOLKATA 700 027
S.C. CASE NO. : FA/385/2011
DATE OF FILING : 30.08.2011 DATE OF FINAL ORDER: 07.06.2012
APPELLANT
National Insurance Co. Ltd.
CRO-I office at 8, India Exchange Place
5th Floor, Kolkata-700 001.
RESPONDENTS
1. Smt. Urmila Shill Sharma
W/o Late Kalin Shill Sharma
Vill-75, Niztaraf, P.O. Niztaraf
P.S. Makhilganj, Cooch Behar- 735 304.
2. M/s. Golden Trust Financial Services
16, R.N.Mukherjee Road
Kolkata-700 001.
BEFORE : HONBLE
JUSTICE MR. KALIDAS MUKHERJEE, PRESIDENT
MEMBER : MR. S.COARI
MEMBER :
MRS. MRIDULA ROY
FOR THE PETITIONER / APPELLANT : Mr. Swarajit Dey, Ld. Advocate
FOR THE RESPONDENT /
O.P.S.: Mr. B.Prasad, Ld. Advocate
Mr. Avik
K.Dutt, Ld. Advocate
: O R D E R :
MR. S.COARI, LD. MEMBER The present Appeal has been directed against the judgement and order dt. 7.6.11 passed by Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Unit-I, Kolkata, in CDF/Unit-I/Case No. 109/2008 wherein the Ld. District Forum allowed the petition of complaint on contest with cost against OP No. 1 and without cost against OP No. 2 along with a direction upon the OP No. 1 to pay to the complainant the claim amount of Rs. 50,000/- along with interest @ 12% p.a. till the date of full realization from the date of submission of claim form on 17.8.05. The OP No. 1 was also directed to pay to the complainant compensation of Rs. 25,000/- and litigation cost of Rs. 3,000/-.
The case of the Complainant/Respondent before the Ld. District Forum, in brief, was that the husband of the complainant, since deceased, obtained a Janata Personal Accident Policy from the OP No. 1 through OP No. 2 for a sum assured of Rs. 50,000/- after observing all the legal formalities. According to the complainant, during subsistence of the aforesaid insurance policy the insured met with an unnatural death being beaten by a person. According to the complainants case, a criminal case was instituted and the assailant was convicted by a competent court of criminal jurisdiction. The complainants wife in the capacity of a nominee of the insured preferred a claim with the Insurance Co. through the OP No. 2, GTFS, after observing all the legal formalities in supplying the requisite documents. As the Insurance Co. did not settle the claim, the Consumer Complaint was filed for proper redressal.
The OP No. 2 contested the case before the Ld. District Forum by filing a written version thereby praying for exonerating them from the liability of paying any compensation, etc. to the complainant, putting for a case to the effect that they forwarded the claim of the complainant to the OP No. 1 and that the complainant has observed all the legal formalities to that effect.
The OP No. 1 contested the case by filing a written version thereby denying all the material averments mentioned in the petition of complaint contending inter alia that the case was time-barred and that the petition of complaint having been filed on all false and fictitious grounds the complainant was not entitled to any relief whatsoever.
Ld. District Forum while disposing of the petition of complaint has observed that though there was some delay in filing the petition of complaint, but considering the adverse situation, which the helpless lady faced due to sudden demise of her husband, the delay should be condoned and the OP/Insurance Co. having failed to make the payments, which the complainant was entitled being the nominee of her deceased husband, i.e. the insured, disposed of the petition of complaint in favour of the complainant as mentioned above.
The only moot question that revolves round the present Appeal is as to whether the Ld. District Forum was justified enough in disposing of the petition of complaint in the manner as mentioned above.
Decisions referred to on behalf of the Appellant :-
II (2009) CPJ 29 (SC) III (2009) CPJ 75 (SC) II (2011) CPJ 73 Decision referred to on behalf of the Complainant/Respondent :-
III (2008) CPJ 120 (NC) DECISION WITH REASONS At the time of hearing it has been submitted on behalf of the Appellant that the Ld. District Forum having utterly failed to appreciate the cases of respective parties has arrived at a wrong and improper decision which is not at all sustainable under the law.
According to the Ld. Advocate for the Appellant, in this case admittedly the insured was murdered and the terms and conditions of the insurance policy does not contain any relief for an insured who has been murdered and on this score alone the impugned judgement is liable to be set aside. Ld. Advocate for the Appellant has also submitted before us that admittedly the claim was preferred after a lapse of about 6/7 months from the date of occurrence and the decisions cited on behalf of the Appellant is very much in favour of the Appellant in this regard to the effect that the petition of complaint was hopelessly barred by limitation and the Ld. District Forum having ignored the legal principles in this regard has committed a gross error and that the impugned judgement having been passed without considering this aspect of the case the same is liable to be set aside.
We have duly considered the submissions so put forward on behalf of the Appellant and have also gone through the materials on record including pleadings of the parties and also perused the decisions cited by the parties and find that in this case the complainant has put forward a case to the effect that during subsistence of the insurance coverage her husband died being severely beaten by a person and the criminal case has ended into conviction of the assailant. According to the complainant, there was a mere delay in lodging the claim due to adverse situation faced by the complainant and that the Insurance Co. having utterly failed to consider and allow the just and proper claim of the complainant, she has preferred the consumer complaint.
The Insurance Co., on the other hand, has tried to put up a case to the effect that the claim is time-barred and that the complainant having failed to substantiate her allegations as per terms and conditions of the insurance policy the complainant is entitled to any relief whatsoever and accordingly, prayed for dismissal of the petition of complaint.
We have carefully gone through the impugned judgement and find that the Ld. District Forum has considered the pros and cons of the complaint case and has arrived at a just and proper decision. So far as it relates to the plea of time-barred complaint, as raised by the Appellant, we find that the Ld. District Forum has considered this aspect of the case reasonably well. When admittedly the complainant is a widow and that there was an unnatural death of her husband (insured), the delay of 6/7 months should be sympathetically considered by the Ld. District Forum and accordingly, we are unable to accept the submissions so put forward on behalf of the Appellant in this regard. Moreover, the facts and circumstances of the decisions cited on behalf of the Appellant in this regard appear to be different from the instant one and accordingly, the principles laid down in those decisions are not applicable to the instant one. So far as it relates to the plea of murder, as raised on behalf of the Appellant, we find much substance in the submissions put forward by the Ld. Advocate for the Respondent, who while relying upon the decision reported in III (2008) CPJ 120 (NC) has submitted that the Honble National Commission has observed that even a murder should be considered to be an accidental death. Thus, having considered the facts and circumstances of the case we find no merit in the present Appeal, which is liable to be dismissed. In the result, the Appeal fails.
Hence, it is ORDERED that the Appeal stands dismissed on contest without any order as to cost.
The impugned judgement stands confirmed.
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT