Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 1, Cited by 0]

National Consumer Disputes Redressal

Bejanti Devi & Ors. vs Divisional Manager, National ... on 31 January, 2018

          NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION  NEW DELHI          REVISION PETITION NO. 3444 OF 2011     (Against the Order dated 02/08/2011 in Appeal No. 142/2009     of the State Commission Jharkhand)        1. BEJANTI DEVI & ORS.  R/o Hamidganj, Chairman Road, P.O & P.S Daltonganj  Palamau  2. Branch Manager,   Goldern Trust Financial Services, Rajdhani complex, Daltonganj  Palamau  3. Zonal Mamager,  Golden Trust Financial Services, 16,R.N Mukherjee Road  Kolkata - 700001  West bangal ...........Petitioner(s)  Versus        1. DIVISIONAL MANAGER, NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. & ANR.  NatiuonalInsurence Co.Ltd, Ground Floor,
Inida exchange Palace  Kolkatta - 700001  West Bangal  2. GOLDEN TRUST FINANCIAL SERVICES  -  -  - ...........Respondent(s) 
  	    BEFORE:      HON'BLE MR. DR. S.M. KANTIKAR,PRESIDING MEMBER 
      For the Petitioner     :      Mr. K. P. Sundar Rao, Adv.,
  
  
  Amicus Curiae       For the Respondent      : NEMO  
 Dated : 31 Jan 2018  	    ORDER    	    

 

 

 ORDER

1.       This revision petition has been filed under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the order dated 24.6.2011 passed in F.A. No. 142 of 2009 by Jharkhand State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ranchi (in short, 'the State Commission') whereby the appeal of the insurance company was allowed and the order dated 19.11.2008 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Daltonganj (in short, 'the District Forum') was set aside.

2.       The brief facts of the case are that the complainant, Bejanti Devi took Janta Personal Accident Policy from National Insurance Company Ltd./OP for a sum of Rs.50,000/- valid from 31.3.2002 to 31.3.2017.  During the validity of the policy, he was killed on 9.2.2005.  Being nominee for the said policy, she filed a claim with the OP, which was repudiated vide letter dated 27.3.2008.  Hence, she filed a complaint before the District Forum, Daltonganj.

3.       The OP resisted the complaint and submitted that it was not an accidental death.  It was a murder, therefore, the claim was repudiated.  Also submitted that there was no deficiency on the part of OP. 

4.       The District Forum allowed the complaint and directed the OPs to pay jointly and severally a sum of Rs.50,000/-, the insured amount, alongwith Rs.5,000/- as compensation and Rs.5,000/- as costs.  Being aggrieved, the OP filed appeal before the State Commission.  It was allowed and the order of District Forum was set aside.  Being aggrieved, the complainant filed this revision petition.

5.       We have heard the learned counsel for both the parties.  Learned amicus curiae, Mr. K. P. Sundar Rao vehemently argued that the complainant was a poor widow and sustained mental trauma due to the murder of her husband.  The policy amount was very meagre.  She submitted the insurance claim in 2005 but, the OP took too much period to decide the matter and repudiated on 27.3.2008 i.e. after three years.  Thus, it was a deficiency on the part of OP.  Secondly, the murder was sudden unexpected event.  Thus, the death was an accidental.  The counsel relied upon the judgment in the case of Maya Devi and Rati Devi in this context. 

6.       Learned counsel for the respondents vehemently argued that it was a murder simpliciter, therefore, as per policy terms and conditions, the insurance claim was denied.  The deceased was shot by gun due to personal enmity.  The criminal case was decided and the accused were convicted in that case for the offence of murder, therefore, it was not an accident and murder simpliciter. 

7.       We have given our thoughtful consideration and perused the FIR and the Panchnama, which was prepared after murder.  It transpired that there was personal enmity between the accused and the victim and they have filed the bullets in the head of the injured, who instantaneously died, therefore, it will not be wise to say that it was an accidental death.

8.       On the basis of foregoing discussion, we do not find any merit in the instant revision petition, therefore, it is dismissed.  However, there shall be no order as to costs.                                                                     

  ...................... DR. S.M. KANTIKAR PRESIDING MEMBER