State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Divisional Manager, The New India ... vs Swati Chanda, Wife Of Late Bidhydyuti ... on 11 November, 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/850/2012 (Arisen out of Order Dated 27/09/2012 in Case No.CC/42/2012 of District Nadia, Nadia DF,) DATE OF FILING :09.11.2012 DATE OF ORDER:11.11.2013 APPELLANT : 1. Divisional Manager, The New India Assurance Company Ltd., Howrah Divisional Office, Unit No.512200, Madhusudan Apartment, P-18, Dobson Lane (2nd Floor), Howrah-711101 2. Branch Manager, The New India Assurance Company Ltd., Krishnanagar, Branch, near Krishnagar Bus Stand, P.O. Krishnagar, P.S. Kotwali, Dist: Nadia, PIN-741101 RESPONDENT : 1. Swati Chanda, wife of Late Bidhudyuti Chanda, at present residing at Village- Bethuadahari, Uttarpara (Near Patel Saw Mill),P.O. Bethuadahari, P.S. Nakshipara, District-Nadia, PIN-741126. 2. The Manager, Golden Multi Services Club of M/s G.T.F.S., Krishnagar Branch, Near Challenge More Electronic Market, P.O. Kirshnagar, P.S. Kotwali, District Nadia, PIN-741101 BEFORE HONBLE MEMBER : Sri Debasis Bhattacharya. HONBLE MEMBER : Sri Jagannath Bag. FOR THE APPELLANTS : Mr. Pralay Kar, Ld. Advocate FOR THE RESPONDENTS : Mr.Ritobrata Banerjee, Ld. Advocate Mr.Abhik Kr. Dutta, Ld. Advodcate Sri Debasis Bhattacharya , Member
Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the judgment dated 27.09.2012 in Case No. 42/2012, the OP Nos. 1 & 2 hereof have preferred this appeal. By the impugned judgment, the Ld. District Forum has allowed the case on contest and that the Complainant is entitled to get the insured amount of Rs.1,00,00/- (Rupees one lakh) along with compensation of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand) for mental harassment caused to her plus a litigation cost of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand), i.e., in total Rs.1,15,000/- (Rupees one lakh fifteen thousand). The OP Nos. 1 & 2 are made jointly and severally liable to make payment of the decreetal amount of Rs.1,15,000/- within a period of one month from the date of the judgment, in default, the decreetal amount will carry interest @ 10% p.a. from the date of judgment till the date of realization of the full payment.
In a nutshell, the case of the Complainant is that, her husband Bidhudyuti Chanda, purchased a Jatana Personal Accident Insurance Policy, being No. 4751220001799/E. No.47/30888 of the OP Insurance Company for a sum insured of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh) for the period from 15.07.2000 to 14.07.2015, through the OP No.3. He died on 02.07.2011 in a road traffic accident, which was registered as Dhubulia P.S. Case No. 308/11 dated 02.07.2011, u/s 279/304A/338, I.P.C. The Complainant informed the death to the OP No.3, who informed the OP No.1, requesting to issue a claim form to the Complainant and the same was received by the Complainant and she submitted the same duly filled in along with necessary documents to the OP No.3, who transmitted the same to the OP No.1, by a letter dated 28.03.2012. After about one month, the Complainant sent a letter dated 16.04.2012 to the OP No.1 with copy to the other OPs, requesting early settlement of the claim. Thereafter, on 07.05.2012, she sent an Advocates letter to the OP No.1 with copy to the other OPs requesting expeditious settlement of her claim. Lastly, this case.
On the other hand, the case of the OP Nos. 1 & 2 in their W.V., inter alia, is that as per report of the investigation, the deceased was a driver under Mr. Angshuman Dey at the time of accident. The Investigator visited the office of the G.T.F.S. at Kolkata, but he was not supplied with any document and one staff of the legal cell of G.T.F.S. verbally told him that the deceased was a Fieldworker, but not handed over any copy of identity card to him. Accordingly, they prayed for dismissal of the case.
Further, the contention of the OP No.3 has been supportive to the Complainants case.
It is to be considered if the impugned judgment suffers from any kind of anomaly requiring interference therein in this appeal.
Decision with reasons.
Ld. Advocate for the Appellants has submitted that the deceased was a Driver of the Scorpio involved in the accident under Mr. Anghshuman Dey. But, there is no document of his employment in G.T.F.S. Only after his death, a Certificate in the usual fashion under, To Whom It May Concern was issued stating that he worked as Fieldworker of the G.T.F.S. Being a serving Driver of a person, he cannot be deemed as a Fieldworker of the G.T.F.S. So, according to the deceaseds job profile, the Complainant is not eligible for the claim.
Ld. Advocate for the Respondent No.1 has made out that the deceased was not a permanent staff of Mr. Angshuman Dey, which was purely a temporary job going on for the last two years, prior to his death on 02.07.2011, while the policy commenced on 15.07.2000. As per the privity of contract, the Complainant being the nominee of the insurance, is rightly entitled to get the money/claim. There has been no repudiation by the Appellants, which denies the claimant of either a repudiation or a settlement.
Ld. Advocate for the Respondent No.2 has submitted that the Insurance Company used to play fraudulently against the claimants only at the time of contingency of death requiring payment of the insured sum. The Fieldworkers are not permanent employees of the G.T.F.S, as the case with the deceased. It is meant for below poverty limit people. He has relied upon a judgment of the Honble Calcutta High Court in WP No. 17808 (W) of 2004.
Admittedly, the insurance was taken in the year 2000, while the death of the insured took place in 2011 due to road traffic accident. During this long span, no question arose as to the validity of the insurance in favour of the deceased, i.e., in his lifetime. The job as Driver under Mr. Anghshuman Dey started only two years before the death of the insured. So, it cannot be said that in the year 2000, he was working as such. Further, his engagement as a Driver did not preclude him from working as a Fieldworker of the G.T.F.S. in his off time, more so, as the job of Driver was absolutely temporary.
In all such facts and circumstances, as also found by the Ld. District Forum, there is nothing to disturb the impugned judgment. There is no merit in the contentions of the Appellants, whatsoever.
Accordingly, the appeal is liable to be dismissed.
Hence, Ordered that the appeal be and the same is dismissed on contest against the Respondents, but without any order as to costs. The impugned judgment is hereby affirmed.
MEMBER MEMBER