District Consumer Forum, Bokaro.
Consumer Case No. 11 of 2008



Raj Kumari Devi w/o late Jitendra Kumar Ojha

Through-Sri Madan Ojha, TaraNagar, P.S.-Chas, Dist.- Bokaro.

Versus

1. Senior Divisional Manager, National Insurance Co. Ltd.

Division-III, National Insurance Building8, India Exchange Place (Ground Floor), Kolkata-700001.

2. Manager, Golden Multi Services Club Limited

S.B. Mansion, 16, R.N. Mukherjee Road, Kolkata-700001.

3 Divisional Manager, National Insurance Co. Ltd.

Sector-1, Bokaro Steel City, Dist.- Bokaro.

Before-

S.M.Alam, President

Vijay Bahadur Singh, Member
Shabnam Praveen, Member



Date of Judgment-: 24 March, 2009

Date of case filing-: 8 February, 2008.

-: Judgment:-

Complainant has filed this case against the

opposite parties for direction to them to pay Rs. 500000/ assured money together with interest @ 18%, besides Rs. 50000/- compensation and Rs. 20000/- cost of litigation to the complainant.

Brief fact of the case is that the complainant is legally married wife of late Jitendra Kumar Ojha and also nominee with respect to Janta Personal Accident Policy No. 100300/47/01/96000022/03 /96/30451. The said insurance policy was taken from the opposite party no.1 through the opposite party no.2, which was valid from 31.03.2004 to 30. 03.2019. The husband of the complainant met with an accident and died on 18.12.2004. The complainant after death of her husband submitted her claim before the opposite parties but the opposite parties have yet not paid the claim of the complainant. On 27.06.2006 vide letter no. GTFS/claim/JPA/MKT-17508 all the papers relating to the insurance of deceased have been sent to the opposite parties. The complainant also furnished her new address to the opposite parties. The opposite party No.2 GTFS also forwarded the application of the complainant regarding the payment against her claim to the opposite party No.1 and 3. The complainant also served legal notice on 27.12.2007 upon the opposite parties and except the opposite party no.2 other opposite parties have not replied to the notice of the complainant. The claim of the complainant is genuine but since the opposite parties are not making payment of her claim in spite of submission of all require papers, reminder and legal notice which tantamount to deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties, hence the complainant is entitled to get the relief sought against the opposite parties.

3 Upon issuance of notice the opposite parties have appeared and the opposite party No.1 and 3 have filed their common written statement, whereas the opposite party no.2 filed its written statement separately.

4 According to the written statement of the opposite party no.1 and 3 ( National Insurance co. Ltd.) is that the present complaint case is not maintainable in law or in fact as there is no cause of action for filing the complaint against these opposite parties. The opposite parties No.1 and 3 have not received the required documents by the complainant. So far other allegations against the opposite parties No.1 and 3 are concerned they have also been denied by them. The opposite parties are not deficient or negligence in providing service to the complainant, as such the complainant is not entitled to get the said claim and the case is fit to be dismissed.

5 The written statement of the opposite party no.2 in brief is that admittedly the National insurance co. Ltd. issued GJPA Policy in favour of the insurer facilitator, Golden Multi Service Club Limited of Golden Trust Financial Services to extend benefit to their member Jitendra Kumar Ojha for the sum insured of Rs. 500000/- for the period 31.03.2004 to 30.03.2019 under policy no. 100300/47/01/96000022/03 /96/30451. The complainant being wife was nominee under the policy. The opposite party No.2 after initial processing forwarded the papers to the opposite party No.1 on 30.06.2006 vide letter dated 27.06.2006. According to memorandum of understanding no authority is vested with opposite party no.2 to dispose of the claim since the authority to dispose of the claim is the exclusive right of opposite party no.1 and non else. Thus opposite party no.2 pray before the Learned Forum that impleading them in the above mentioned case would serve no purpose in the interest of justice and equity and therefore their name be kindly expunged from the petition of complaint and the complaint case is fit to be dismissed.

6 Heard the parties and perused the case records and documents filed by them. It is observed that the complainant’s husband had taken the policy in question from the opposite party no.1 through opposite party no.2 in which the address of the deceased insured is mentioned as follows –

AT+PO= Dhangrha, P.S.-Baniyapur, Dist.- Chhapra, SARAN( Bihar) Pin- 841403. The complainant is the nominee in the said policy. Accident of the deceased insured had occurred in the District of SARAN as per the FRT filed in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, SARAN. The death certificate of the complainant’s husband has been issued by The Registrar of Death and Birth, Nagar Parisad, Chhapra. The post mortem of the deceased insured was done at Sadar Hospital, Chhapra. The complainant’s claim was submitted to opposite party no.2 at Chhapra.

7 It is further observed that payment of the complainant’s claim by the insurance co. is under consideration with them and the same has not been repudiated.

8 Under the facts and circumstances of the case, the opposite parties are directed to settle the complainant’s claim within 30 days from the date of this order.