State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Manager & Anr. vs Smt. Sevati Sahu & Anr. on 20 December, 2013
CHHATTISGARH STATE
CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
PANDRI, RAIPUR (C.G).
Appeal No.FA/12/654
Instituted on : 12.11.2012
1. Manager, The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.,
Registered Office, Oriental House, A/25, Aasif Ali Road,
New Delhi, 110 002
2. Manager, The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.,
Branch Office No.3, Kutchery Chowk,
RAIPUR (C.G.)
Present Address:
Ring Road No., Pachpedi Naka,
RAIPUR (C.G.) ... Appellants.
Vs.
1. Smt. Sevati Sahu, W/o: Late Shri Premlal Sahu,
R/o: 97, Mathpara, Ward No.3, Durg,
Dist. DURG (C.G.)
Present Address:
Through: Khumendra Sahu,
Chhattisgarh Nagar, Tikrapara,
RAIPUR (C.G.)
2. Manager, Prime Rose Pvt. Ltd. Co.,
Add.: Nr. Navkar Hospital,
Qr. No. C-245, Shailendra Nagar,
RAIPUR (C.G.) ... Respondents.
Appeal No.FA/12/655
Instituted on : 12.11.2012
1. Manager, The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.,
Registered Office, Oriental House, A/25, Aasif Ali Road,
New Delhi, 110 002
2. Manager, The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.,
Branch Office No.3, Kutchery Chowk,
RAIPUR (C.G.)
Present Address:
Ring Road No., Pachpedi Naka,
RAIPUR (C.G.) ... Appellants.
// 2 //
Vs.
1. Smt. Lomas Sahu, W/o: Late Shri Yograj Sahu,
R/o: Village Diwanmedi, Thana Dongargarh,
Dist. RAJNANDGAON (C.G.)
Present Address:
Through: Mukesh Sahu, Motinagar, Boriakhurd,
Tah. & Dist. RAIPUR (C.G.)
2. Manager, Prime Rose Pvt. Ltd. Co.,
Add.: Nr. Navkar Hospital,
Qr. No. C-245, Shailendra Nagar,
RAIPUR (C.G.) ... Respondents.
Appeal No.FA/12/656
Instituted on : 12.11.2012
1. Manager, The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.,
Registered Office, Oriental House, A/25, Aasif Ali Road,
New Delhi, 110 002
2. Manager, The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.,
Branch Office No.3, Kutchery Chowk,
RAIPUR (C.G.)
Present Address:
Ring Road No., Pachpedi Naka,
RAIPUR (C.G.) ... Appellants.
Vs.
1. Vinita Kristofar, D/o: Shri Vinod Kristofar,
R/o: Village & Post, Bhardakala, Tah. Gundardehi,
Dist. DURG (C.G.)
Present Address:
Through: Raju Pitar, Katora Talab,
Tah. & Dist. RAIPUR (C.G.)
2. Manager, Prime Rose Pvt. Ltd. Co.,
Add.: Nr. Navkar Hospital,
Qr. No. C-245, Shailendra Nagar,
RAIPUR (C.G.) ... Respondents.
Appeal No.FA/12/657
Instituted on : 12.11.2012
1. Manager, The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.,
Registered Office, Oriental House, A/25, Aasif Ali Road,
// 3 //
New Delhi, 110 002
2. Manager, The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.,
Branch Office No.3, Kutchery Chowk,
RAIPUR (C.G.)
Present Address:
Ring Road No., Pachpedi Naka,
RAIPUR (C.G.) ... Appellants.
Vs.
1. Smt. Shivkumari Sahu, W/o: Late Shri Maluram Sahu,
R/o: Asha Nagar, Post- Mohan Nagar,
DURG (C.G.)
Temporary Address:
Nr. Kumar Pan Palace, Bendri Road, Urla,
Dist. RAIPUR (C.G.)
2. Manager, Prime Rose Pvt. Ltd. Co.,
Add.: Nr. Navkar Hospital,
Qr. No. C-245, Shailendra Nagar,
RAIPUR (C.G.) ... Respondents.
Appeal No.FA/12/658
Instituted on : 12.11.2012
1. Manager, The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.,
Registered Office, Oriental House, A/25, Aasif Ali Road,
New Delhi, 110 002
2. Manager, The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.,
Branch Office No.3, Kutchery Chowk,
RAIPUR (C.G.)
Present Address:
Ring Road No., Pachpedi Naka,
RAIPUR (C.G.) ... Appellants.
Vs.
1. Smt. Lata Bai Yadav, W/o: Late Shri Shivkumar Yadav,
R/o: Village Pachpedi, Post - Panduka,
Dist. RAIPUR (C.G.)
2. Manager, Prime Rose Pvt. Ltd. Co.,
Add.: Nr. Navkar Hospital,
Qr. No. C-245, Shailendra Nagar,
RAIPUR (C.G.) ... Respondents.
// 4 //
Appeal No.FA/12/659
Instituted on : 12.11.2012
1. Manager, The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.,
Registered Office, Oriental House, A/25, Aasif Ali Road,
New Delhi, 110 002
2. Manager, The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.,
Branch Office No.3, Kutchery Chowk,
RAIPUR (C.G.)
Present Address:
Ring Road No., Pachpedi Naka,
RAIPUR (C.G.) ... Appellants.
Vs.
1. Smt. Pushpa Jain, W/o: Late Shri Rajesh Jain,
R/o: Mahavir Ward, Bhatapara,
Tah. & Dist. RAIPUR (C.G.)
Present:
Dist. BALODABAZAR (C.G.)
2. Manager, Prime Rose Pvt. Ltd. Co.,
Add.: Nr. Navkar Hospital,
Qr. No. C-245, Shailendra Nagar,
RAIPUR (C.G.) ... Respondents.
PRESENT: -
HON'BLE JUSTICE SHRI R.S.SHARMA, PRESIDENT
HON'BLE MS. HEENA THAKKAR, MEMBER
COUNSELS FOR THE PARTIES IN ALL SIX APPEALS: -
Shri N.K.Thakur, for appellants.
Shri S.K.Soni, for respondent no.1.
Shri Dharmendra Verma, for respondent no.2.
ORDER
Dated: /12/2013 PER :- HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE R.S. SHARMA, PRESIDENT. Appeal No. FA/12/654, has been filed against order dated 28.09.2012, passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Raipur (henceforth called "District Forum" for short) in Complaint // 5 // Case No.176/2011. By the impugned order, learned District Forum has partly allowed the complaint and directed O.P. nos.1&2 / appellants herein, to pay a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- along with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of the complaint till date of payment and Rs.1,000/- as cost of advocate fee and cost of litigation to the complainant / respondent no.1.
2. Similar orders have been passed in Complaint Case Nos. 194/2011, 546/2011, 547/2011, 974/2011 & 127/2011 on 28.09.2012 and O.P.Nos.1 & 2 / appellants herein, have been directed :-
(i) In Complaint Case No.194/2011 (Appeal No. FA/12/655) to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- to the complainant/respondent no.1 along with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of filing of the complaint till date of payment and Rs.1,000/- as cost of advocate fee and cost of litigation.
(ii) In Complaint Case No.546/2011 (Appeal No. FA/12/656) to pay a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- to the complainant/respondent no.1 along with interest @ 6% p.a. from date of filing of the complaint till date of payment and Rs.1,000/- as cost of advocate fee and cost of litigation
(iii) In Complaint Case No.547/2011 (Appeal No. FA/12/657) to pay a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- to the complainant/respondent no.1 along with interest @ 6% p.a. from date of filing of the complaint till date of payment and Rs.1,000/- as cost of advocate fee and cost of litigation // 6 //
(iv) In Complaint Case No.974/2011 (Appal No. FA/12/658) to pay a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- to the complainant/respondent no.1 along with interest @ 6% p.a. from date of filing of the complaint till date of payment and Rs.1,000/- as cost of advocate fee and cost of litigation
(v) In Complaint Case No.127/2011 (Appal No. FA/12/659) to pay a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- to the complainant/respondent no.1 along with interest @ 6% p.a. from date of filing of the complaint till date of payment and Rs.1,000/- as cost of advocate fee and cost of litigation.
The appellants / OP nos. 1&2 have preferred appeal Nos. FA/12/655, FA/12/656, FA/12/657, FA/12/658 & FA/12/659 against those orders also. For the purpose of convenience all these appeals are taken up altogether for hearing by this Commission and are being decided by a common order. The questions of law and questions of fact involved in the matter are similar, therefore, they are being decided by this common order. For the purpose of further convenience, henceforth in this order, the parties will be referred as per their original nomenclature in the complaint case. The original of this order be retained in the file of Appeal No. FA/12/654 and it's copy be placed in the file of Appeal Nos.FA/12/655, FA/12/656, FA/12/657, FA/12/658 & FA/12/659.
3. In brief, the case of the complainant/respondent no.1 before the District Forum, are as under :-
// 7 // Complaint Case No.176/2011 (Appeal No. FA/12/654) :
The complainant Smt. Sevati Sahu, is widow of deceased Premlal Sahu. The deceased Premlal Sahu, was insured with O.P. Nos.1 & 2 under Group Janta Personal Accident Insurance Policy and Policy No.152308/48/2009/2068, was obtained by deceased Premlal Sahu and the duration of the insurance policy, was from 25.02.2009 to 24.02.2010. The insured amount is to the tune of Rs.2,00,000/-.
According to the insurance policy, when the insured shall die in an accident, then his Legal Representative (nominee) shall be entitled for sum of Rs.2,00,000/- and in case of physical injuries to the insured in the accident, the legal representative (nominee) shall be entitled for Rs.40,000/- as compensation. The insurance policy was obtained by the deceased Premlal Sahu, through O.P.No.3. On 11.09.2009, the husband of the complainant Premlal Sahu, met with a road accident near Chotu Garage, Ganjpara, Durg when driver of an unknown vehicle dashed him by driving the vehicle rashly and negligently and the insured died on the same day. The matter was reported to the Police Station, Durg, where merg intimation no.76/09 was recorded and crime no.521/09 for offence under section 304A IPC was also registered. The dead body of the deceased was sent to District Hospital, Durg for post mortem examination and post mortem was conducted on the dead body of the deceased. The complainant, who is legal representative (nominee) of the deceased made claim O.P. No.1 // 8 // & 2 but the O.P. Nos.1 & 2 repudiated the claim of the complainant. The complainant filed complaint before the District Forum, Raipur and learned District Forum allowed the complaint of the complainant and directed the O.P.Nos.1 & 2 to pay Rs.2,00,000/- along with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of filing of the complaint till date of payment and also awarded Rs.1,000/- as Advocate fees and cost of litigation. Complaint Case No.194/2011 (Appeal No. FA/12/655) The complainant Smt. Lomas Sahu, is widow of deceased Yograj Sahu,. The deceased Yograj Sahu was insured with O.P. Nos.1 & 2 under Group Janta Personal Accident Insurance Policy and Policy No.152308/48/2009/1917 was obtained by deceased Yograj Sahu and the duration of the insurance policy was from 03.02.2009 to 02.02.2010 and insured amount is to the tune of Rs1,00,000/-. According to the insurance policy, when the insured shall die in an accident, then his Legal Representative (nominee) shall be entitled for sum of Rs.1,00,000/- and in case of physical injuries to the insured in the accident, the legal representative (nominee) shall be entitled for Rs.20,000/- as compensation. The insurance policy was obtained by the deceased Yograj Sahu, through O.P.No.3. On 16.11.2009 deceased was driving the motorcycle bearing registration No.C.G.07/L.K. 9270 and one Mohan Singh was riding as pillion rider, when they reached near in front of Ayurvedic College, G.E. Road, Somni, an unknown // 9 // vehicle which was being driven by the driver negligently and rashly dashed the motorcycle. Yograj Singh and Mohan Singh both died at the spot due to the accident. The matter was reported to the Police Station, Somni, where Merg No.55/09 was recorded and Crime No.283/09 for offence under section 304A IPC was also registered. The dead body of the deceased was sent to District Hospital, Rajnandgaon for post mortem examination and post mortem was conducted on the dead body of the deceased. The complainant, who is legal representative (nominee) of the deceased made claim before O.P. No.1 & 2 but the O.P. Nos.1 & 2 repudiated the claim of the complainant. The complainant filed complaint before the District Forum, Raipur and learned District Forum allowed the complaint of the complainant and directed the O.P.Nos.1 & 2 to pay Rs.1,00,000/- along with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of filing of the complaint till date of payment and also awarded Rs.1,000/- as Advocate fees and cost of litigation.
Complaint Case No.546/2011 (Appeal No. FA/12/656) :
The complainant Vinita Kristofar, is niece (Bhanji) of deceased Smt. Alizabeth Paul. The deceased was insured with O.P. Nos.1 & 2 under Group Janta Personal Accident Insurance Policy and Policy No.153308/48/2010/73 was obtained by deceased Smt. Alizabeth Paul and the duration of the insurance policy was from 18.04.2009 to // 10 // 17.04.2010. The insured amount is to the tune of Rs.2,00,000/-.
According to the insurance policy, when the insured shall die in an accident, then her Legal Representative (nominee) shall be entitled for sum of Rs.2,00,000/- and in case of physical injuries to the insured in the accident, the legal representative (nominee) shall be entitled for Rs.40,000/- as compensation. The insurance policy was obtained by the deceased Smt. Alizabeth Paul through O.P.No.3. On 26.07.2009 when deceased was riding in motorcycle bearing registration No.C.G.07/L.D. 0363 as pillion rider and motorcycle was being driven by one Harishchandra Sahu, when they reached near District Government Hospital, Durg a truck bearing registration No.C.G.07/Z.C.-3594 coming from front side which was being driven by the driver negligently and rashly, dashed the motorcycle. Smt. Alizabeth Paul, died due to the accident. The matter was reported to the Police Station, Durg, where merg intimation no.61/09 was recorded and Crime No.381/09 for offence under sections 279 and 304A IPC was also registered. The dead body of the deceased was sent to District Hospital, Durg for post mortem examination and post mortem was conducted on the dead body of the deceased. The complainant, who is legal representative (nominee) of the deceased made claim O.P. No.1 & 2 but the O.P. Nos.1 & 2 repudiated the claim of the complainant. The complainant filed complaint before the District Forum, Raipur and learned District Forum allowed the // 11 // complaint of the complainant and directed the O.P.Nos.1 & 2 to pay Rs.2,00,000/- along with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of filing of the complaint till date of payment and also awarded Rs.1,000/- as Advocate fees and cost of litigation.
Complaint Case No.547/2011 (Appeal No. FA/12/657) :
The complainant Smt. Shiv Kumari Sahu, is widow of deceased Maluram Sahu. The deceased was insured with O.P. Nos.1 & 2 under Group Janta Personal Accident Insurance Policy and Policy No.152308/48/09/1653 was obtained by deceased Maluram Sahu and the duration of the insurance policy was from 26.12.2008 to 25.12.2009. The insured amount is to the tune of Rs2,00,000/-.
According to the insurance policy, when the insured shall die in an accident, then her Legal Representative (nominee) shall be entitled for sum of Rs.2,00,000/- and in case of physical injuries to the insured in the accident, the legal representative (nominee) shall be entitled for Rs.40,000/- as compensation. The insurance policy was obtained by the deceased Maluram Sahu through O.P.No.3. On 18.05.2009 when deceased was pouring water in the roof of his house, he came to contact of the electric wire and he was injured. He was brought to District Hospital, Durg for treatment, where he died on 18.05.2009. Maluram Sahu, died due to electrocution. The matter was reported to the Police Station, Durg, where merg intimation no.30/09 was // 12 // recorded. The dead body of the deceased was sent to District Hospital, Durg for post mortem examination and post mortem was conducted on the dead body of the deceased. The complainant, who is legal representative (nominee) of the deceased made claim O.P. No.1 & 2 but the O.P. Nos.1 & 2 repudiated the claim of the complainant. The complainant filed complaint before the District Forum, Raipur and learned District Forum allowed the complaint of the complainant and directed the O.P.Nos.1 & 2 to pay Rs.2,00,000/- along with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of filing of the complaint till date of payment and also awarded Rs.1,000/- as Advocate fees and cost of litigation. Complaint Case No.974/2011 (Appeal No. FA/12/658) :
The complainant Smt. Lata Bai Yadav, is widow of deceased Shiv Kumar Yadav. The deceased was insured with O.P. Nos.1 & 2 under Group Janta Personal Accident Insurance Policy and Policy No.152308/48/2010/73 was obtained by deceased Shiv Kumar Yadav and the duration of the insurance policy was from 18.04.2009 to 17.04.2010. The insured amount is to the tune of Rs.2,00,000/-.
According to the insurance policy, when the insured shall die in an accident, then her Legal Representative (nominee) shall be entitled for sum of Rs.2,00,000/- and in case of physical injuries to the insured in the accident, the legal representative (nominee) shall be entitled for Rs.40,000/- as compensation. The insurance policy was obtained by // 13 // the deceased Shiv Kumar Yadav through O.P.No.3. On 14.01.2010 when deceased was going to Panduka from Pod by his motorcycle bearing registration No.C.G.04-D.J.9241, a Hero Honda motorcycle bearing registration No.C.G.04-D.J.7977 coming from front side which was being driven by the driver negligently and rashly, dashed the motorcycle of the deceased Shiv Kumar Yadav. Shiv Kumar Yadav died due to the accident. The matter was reported to the Police Station, Rajim where merg intimation no.7/2010 was recorded and Crime No.16/2010 for offence under sections 279, 337 and 304A IPC was also registered. The dead body of the deceased was sent to Dr. B. R. Ambedkar Hospital, Raipur for post mortem examination and post mortem was conducted on the dead body of the deceased. The complainant, who is legal representative (nominee) of the deceased made claim O.P. No.1 & 2 but the O.P. Nos.1 & 2 repudiated the claim of the complainant. The complainant filed complaint before the District Forum, Raipur and learned District Forum allowed the complaint of the complainant and directed the O.P.Nos.1 & 2 to pay Rs.2,00,000/- along with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of filing of the complaint till date of payment and also awarded Rs.1,000/- as Advocate fees and cost of litigation.
Complaint Case No.127/2011 (Appeal No. FA/12/659) :
The complainant Smt. Pushpa Jain, is widow of deceased Rajesh Jain. The deceased was insured with O.P. Nos.1 & 2 under // 14 // Group Janta Personal Accident Insurance Policy and Policy No.152308/48/2010/4 was obtained by deceased Rajesh Jain and the duration of the insurance policy was from 03.04.2009 to 02.04.2010 and insured amount is to the tune of Rs.2,00,000/-. According to the insurance policy, when the insured shall die in an accident, then his Legal Representative (nominee) shall be entitled for sum of Rs.2,00,000/- and in case of physical injuries to the insured in the accident, the legal representative (nominee) shall be entitled for Rs.40,000/- as compensation. The insurance policy was obtained by the deceased Rajesh Jain, through O.P.No.3. On 22.05.2009 when deceased was coming to his house after taking milk from his scooty bearing registration No.C.G.04-DF-5893, then the driver of a Hero Honda motorcycle bearing registration No.C.G.04-C-6552, who was driving the vehicle negligently and rashly, dashed the motorcycle of the deceased Rajesh Jain and fell down there and was crushed by a tractor bearing registration no.C.G.04.D/3127. Rajesh Jain died due to the accident. The matter was reported to the Police Station, Bhatapara where Crime No.179/09 for offence under sections 279, 337 and 304A IPC was registered. The dead body of the deceased was sent to Dr. C.H.C. Bhatapara, for post mortem examination and post mortem was conducted on the dead body of the deceased. The complainant, who is legal representative (nominee) of the deceased made claim O.P. No.1 & 2 but the O.P. Nos.1 & 2 repudiated the claim of the // 15 // complainant. The complainant filed complaint before the District Forum, Raipur and learned District Forum allowed the complaint of the complainant and directed the O.P.Nos.1 & 2 to pay Rs.2,00,000/- along with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of filing of the complaint till date of payment and also awarded Rs.1,000/- as Advocate fees and cost of litigation.
4. In all the complaint cases, the O.P.Nos.1 & 2 / Insurance Company filed their reply before the District Forum and averred that the claim preferred by the complainants were made after 17 months, 16 months, 19 months, 21 months, 6 months and 16 months respectively from the date of the accident and so the Insurance Company committed no deficiency in service in repudiating the claim of the complainant on the ground of delayed intimation. It is also alleged that as per terms of the insurance policy, it was necessary that intimation regarding accident of the employee should be provided to the insurance company immediately. On account of late intimation of the accidental death of the deceased insured, the Insurance Company had deprived of making investigation and so the Insurance Company repudiated the claims of the complainants and the repudiation are justified.
5. Learned District Forum, after having considered the rival contentions of all the parties, allowed the complaint case Nos.
// 16 // 176/2011, 546/2011, 547/2011, 974/2011 and 127/2011 and directed the O.P.Nos.1 & 2 to pay Rs.2,00,000/- along with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of filing of the complaint till date of payment to the complainant and also awarded Rs.1,000/- as Advocate fees and cost of litigation in favour of the complainants. In complaint case No.194/2011, the District Forum by allowing the complaint directed the O.P.nos.1 & 2 to pay Rs.1,00,000/- along with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of filing of the complaint till date of payment to the complainant and also awarded Rs.1,000/- as Advocate fees and cost of litigation.
6. Shri N.K. Thakur, learned counsel for the appellants / O.P.Nos. 1 & 2 argued that the complainants preferred their claims before the appellant/O.P.Nos.1 & 2 after lapse of 17 months, 16 months, 19 months, 21 months, 6 months and 16 months respectively from the date of the accident and intimation was given to the appellants/O.P.Nos.1 & 2 after an inordinate delay and therefore the Insurance Company had deprived to take proper defence and if the accident would reported within time, then the Insurance Company would have an opportunity to appoint Investigator for investigating the matter but due to delayed intimation, the Insurance Company could not appoint Investigator and the Insurance Company had deprived from their right. He further argued that the impugned orders passed by learned District Forum are // 17 // illegal and learned District forum erred in holding that complainants are entitled for Rs.2,00,000/-, 1,00,000/-, Rs.2,00,000/-, Rs.2,00,000/-, Rs.2,00,000/- & Rs.2,00,000/- along with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of filing of the complaints till date of payment & Rs.1,000/- as Advocate fees and cost of litigation. He placed reliance on Judgments of Hon'ble National Commission in the case of (i) New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Ram Avtar (First Appeal No.141 of 2009) decided on 11.11.2013, (ii) Shri Kuldeep Singh Vs. Iffco Tokio General Insurance Co. Ltd. (Revision Petition No.2982 of 2012) decided on 18.01.2013, (iii) Dharam Kumar Agrawal vs. Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd., & Others (Revision Petition No.709 of 2012) decided on 5th October 2012.
7. Shri S.K. Soni, learned counsel for the complainants supported the impugned order and submitted that the impugned order does not call for any interference by this Commission. He prayed for dismissal of all these appeals He placed reliance on judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Madras Port Trust vs. Hymanshu International by Its Proprietor v. Venkatgiri (Dead) by L.R.s, (1979) 4 Supreme Court Cases 176 and judgement of this Commission in the Case of Chhattisgarh State Power Holding Co. Ltd. Vs. The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. & others (Appeal No.368/2011) & The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Managing Director, Chhattisgarh Power Holding Company Ltd., & others (Appeal No.385/2011) decided on 28.09.2011.
// 18 //
8. We have heard learned counsel for all the parties and have also perused the record of the District Forum.
9. In the case of Madras Port Trust vs. Hymanshu International by Its Proprietor v. Venkatgiri (Dead) by L.R.s, (1979) 4 Supreme Court Cases 176, Hon'ble Supreme Court has held thus :
"2. We do not think that this is a fit case where we should proceed to determine whether the claim of the respondent was barred by Section 110 of the Madras Port Trust Act (II of 1905). The plea of limitation based on this section is one which the court always looks upon with disfavour and it is unfortunate that a public authority like the Port Trust should, in all morality and justice, take up such a plea to defeat a just claim of the citizen. It is high time that governments and public authorities adopt the practice of not relying upon technical pleas for the purpose of defeating legitimate claims of citizens and do what is fair and just to the citizens. Of course, if a government or a public authority takes up a technical plea, the Court has to decide it and if plea is well-founded, it has to be upheld by the court, but what we feel is that such a plea should not ordinarily be taken up by a government or a public authority, unless of course the claim is not well-founded and by reason of delay in filing it, the evidence for the purpose of resisting such a claim has become unavailable. Here, it is obvious that the claim of the respondent was a just claim supported as it was by the recommendation of the Assistant Collector of Customs and hence in the exercise of our discretion under Article 136 of the Constitution, we do not see any reason why we should proceed to hear this appeal and adjudicate upon the plea of the appellant // 19 // based on Section 110 of the Madras Port Trust Act (II of 1905)."
10. From the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Madras Port Trust (supra), it is clear that a nationalised insurance company was not required to resort to plea of limitation to defeat just claim of the citizen which is a claim of an employee who has lost his life accidentally and regarding which accidental cover was provided by the Insurance Company.
11.1 Complaint Case No.176/2011 (Appeal No.FA/12/654) :
In the instant case the deceased insured Premlal Sahu, obtained insurance policy from the O.P.Nos.1 & 2 through O.P.No.3 and the insurance policy was valid for the period from 25.02.2009 to 24.02.2010 and the insured Premlal Sahu died on 11.09.2009 due to road accident. The complainant filed merg intimation, first information report, inquest, police investigation report and post mortem report before the District Forum. In the merg intimation date of the occurrence of incident was mentioned as 11.09.2009 at 7.55 P.M. and merg intimation was recorded on the same day at about 21.10 P.M. It appears that the report was lodged within a hour of the occurrence and thereafter inquest was prepared on the dead body of the deceased insured on 11.09.2009 and the dead body was sent to District Hospital, Durg for post mortem examination and post mortem // 20 // was conducted on 12.09.2009. From the documents it appears that the deceased Premlal Sahu died on 11.09.2009 due to accident and when he died, the insurance policy was in force.
11.2 Complaint Case No.194/2011 (Appeal No.FA/12/655) :
In the instant case the deceased insured Yograj Sahu, obtained insurance policy from the O.P.Nos.1 & 2 through O.P.No.3 and the insurance policy was valid for the period from 03.02.2009 to 02.02.2010 and the insured Yograj Sahu died on 16.11.2009 due to road accident. The complainant filed merg intimation, first information report, inquest and post mortem report before the District Forum. In the merg intimation the date of occurrence of incident was mentioned as 16.11.2009 at 19.20 hours and merg intimation was recorded on the same day at about 22.20 hours. It appears that the report was lodged within three hours of the occurrence and thereafter inquest was prepared on the dead body of the deceased insured on 17.11.2009 and the dead body was sent to District Hospital, Durg for post mortem examination and post mortem was conducted on 17.11.2009. From the documents it appears that the deceased Yograj Sahu died on 16.11.2009 due to road accident and when he died, the insurance policy was in force.
// 21 // 11.3. Complaint Case No.546/2011 (Appeal No.FA/12/656) :
In the instant case the deceased insured Smt. Alizabeth Paul, obtained insurance policy from the O.P.Nos.1 & 2 through O.P.No.3 and the insurance policy was valid for the period from 18.04.2009 to 17.04.2010 and the insured Smt. Alizabeth Paul died on 26.07.2009 due to road accident. The complainant filed merg intimation, first information report, inquest, police investigation report and post mortem report before the District Forum. In the merg intimation date of occurrence of incident was mentioned as 26.07.2009 at 12.25 P.M. and merg intimation was recorded on the same day at about 13.20 hours. It appears that the report was lodged within a hour of the occurrence and thereafter inquest was prepared on the dead body of the deceased on 26.07.2009 and the dead body was sent to District Hospital, Durg for post mortem examination and post mortem was conducted on 27.07.2009. From the documents it appears that the deceased Smt. Alizabeth Paul died on 26.07.2009 due to accident and when she died, the insurance policy was in force 11.4 Complaint Case No.547/2011 (Appeal No.FA/12/657) :
In the instant case the deceased insured Maluram Sahu, obtained insurance policy from the O.P.Nos.1 & 2 through O.P.No.3 and the insurance policy was valid for the period from 26.12.2008 to 25.12.2009 and the insured Maluram Sahu died on 18.05.2009 due to // 22 // electrocution. The complainant filed inquest, police investigation report and post mortem report before the District Forum. In the merg intimation date of occurrence of incident was mentioned as 18.05.2009 at 7.00 A.M. and merg intimation was recorded on the same day at about 15.30 hrs. It appears that the report was lodged within eight hours of the occurrence and thereafter inquest was prepared on the dead body of the deceased insured on 18.05.2009 and the dead body was sent to District Hospital, Durg for post mortem examination and post mortem was conducted on 18.05.2009. From the documents it appears that the deceased Maluram Sahu died on 18.05.2009 due to electrocution and when he died, the insurance policy was in force. 11.5 Complaint Case No.974/2011 (Appeal No.FA/12/658) :
In the instant case the deceased insured Shiv Kumar Yadav, obtained insurance policy from the O.P.Nos.1 & 2 through O.P.No.3 and the insurance policy was valid for the period from 18.04.2009 to 17.04.2010 and the insured Shiv Kumar Yadav, died on 14.01.2010 due to road accident. The complainant filed merg intimation, first information report and post mortem report before the District Forum.
In the merg intimation the date of occurrence of incident was mentioned as 14.01.2010 at 2.00 P.M. and merg intimation was recorded on the same day at about 18.40 hours. It appears that the report was lodged within 16 hours of the occurrence and thereafter // 23 // inquest was prepared on the dead body of the deceased and the dead body was sent to Dr. B.R. Ambedkar Hospital, Raipur for post mortem examination and post mortem was conducted on 15.01.2010. From the documents it appears that the deceased Shiv Kumar Yadav died on 14.01.2010 due to accident and when he died, the insurance policy was effective.
11.6. Complaint Case No.127/2011 (Appeal No.FA/12/659) :
In the instant case the deceased insured Rajesh Jain, obtained insurance policy from the O.P.Nos.1 & 2 through O.P.No.3 and the insurance policy was valid for the period from 03.04.2009 to 02.04.2010 and the insured Rajesh Jain, died on 22.05.2009 due to road accident. The complainant filed merg intimation, first information report, final report and post mortem report before the District Forum.
In the merg intimation the date of occurrence of incident was mentioned as 22.05.2009 at 6.20 A.M. and merg intimation was recorded on the same day at about 7.15 A.M. It appears that the report was lodged within a hour of the occurrence and thereafter inquest was prepared on the dead body of the deceased on 22.05.2009 and the dead body was sent to C.H.C. Bhatapara, for post mortem examination and post mortem was conducted on 22.05.2009. From the documents it appears that the deceased Rajesh Jain died on // 24 // 22.05.2009 due to accident and when he died, the insurance policy was effective.
12. The complainants in all cases have also filed insurance policies which is Group Nagrik Suraksha Policy and the policy was issued in favour of respective deceased insured and their details have been mentioned in Members Details Card. The policies were obtained by deceased insured through O.P.No.3, therefore, the Insurance Company was not right to repudiate the claim of the complainants on the ground of delayed intimation.
13. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, we find that learned District Forum has rightly reached on the conclusions that the complainants were entitled for insured amount Rs.2,00,000/-, 1,00,000/-, Rs.2,00,000/-, Rs.2,00,000/-, Rs.2,00,000/- & Rs.2,00,000/- respectively under Group Janta Personal Accident Insurance Policy, therefore, the findings recorded by the District Forum in the impugned orders, are well reasoned order and do not call for any interference by this Commission.
// 25 //
14. Therefore, all the appeals filed by the appellants/O.P.Nos.1 & 2 being devoid of any merit, deserve to be and are hereby dismissed. No order as to the cost of these appeals.
(Justice R.S.Sharma) (Ms.Heena Thakkar)
President Member
/12/2013 /12/2013