West Bengal

Birbhum

CC/77/2019

Mirnal Mondal - Complainant(s)

Versus

Branch Manager, Corporation Bank, Rampurhat BRANCH - Opp.Party(s)

Nabendu Ghosal

13 Oct 2023

ORDER

Shri Sudip Majumder- President-in-Charge.

            The complainant files this case U/S 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The fact of the case in brief is that Complainant/Petitioner  No. 1, Mrinal Mondal is the son and beneficiary of the insured person, Subrata Kumar Mondal. The Complainant No. 2, Swapna Mondal is the wife and beneficiary of the insured person, Subrata Kumar Mondal.

            It is the case of the complainants that the deceased Subrata Kumar Mondal who was father of complainant No. 1 & husband of complainant No. 2 died on 11/01/2019 due to motor vehicles accident and accordingly Rampurhat P.S. Case No. 8/19 dated 11/01/2019 u/s. 279/337/338 I.P.C. has been started vide U/D Case No. 22/2019 dated 11/01/2019.

            It is the further case of the complainants that the late Subrata Kumar Mondal had A/C No. 5202910232223613 with OP No. 1 Bank with insur4ance coverage issued by the oriental Insurance Company Ltd. vide policy No. 432700/48/2019/211 and the deceased Subrata Kumar Mondal used to operate the said A/C. with life insurance benefits of Rs. 5,00,000/-.

            Thus, the complainants are legal heirs of deceased Subrata Kumar Mondal and they are entitled to get Rs. 5,00,000/- as assured amount which was initiated through OP No. 1 with OP No. 2.

            It is the next case of the complainants that after demise of Subrata Kumar Mondal the complainants intimated the matter to OPs and submitted all relevant documents.

            `The OP No. 2 sent a letter to OP No. 1 dated 22/05/2019 and repudiated the insurance claim vide Claim No. 432700/48/2020/000041 on the following ground:

“Date of accident: 11-01-2019

Date of death: 11/01/2019

 

Date of receipt of information by us: 07/05/2019 heard copy.

As per MOU under 8(a) clause: claim notification-claim intimation to be informed to us within 60 days from the date of death.

And as per MOU under 9 clause-CLAIM DOCUMENTS: non submission of : Complete FIR (partial submission of FIR)

The claim shall stand repudiated for the reasons indicated above. No further correspondence will be entertained.”

The complainants met the OP No. 1 for taking proper initiative to disburse the insurance claim amount but both the OPs denied the same.

            Hence, after finding no other alternative, the complainants, the beneficiaries of the insured person file this case before this Forum/Commission and prays for relief as follows:

1. That a decree be passed in favour of the complaints directing the OPs concerned to release and make payment of Insured amount of Rs. 5,00,000/- as per insurance coverage policy No. 432700/48/2019/211.
2. That a direction be given to the OPs for taking necessary step to disburse the said amount with all benefits covered in the said policy in favour of complainants.
3. That a decree be passed in favour of the complainants to make payment by the Ops of Rs. 15,000/- as stationery cost and other expenses of the present proceedings.
4. That an order be passed against the OPs to make payment of Rs. 30,000/- as litigation cost for harassment and mental pain and agony.
5. Other relief/reliefs as the learned forum be deemed fit and proper.

            It appears from case record that none appears from OP members before this District Commission after receiving the notice. OP members have not taken any step. No written version has yet been filed by the OP members.  As a result, vide order No. 22 dated 18/08/2022 this Commission stated for running of the instant case exparte against the OP members.

Complainant’s side submitted evidence-in-chief and written notes on argument. Some documents have also been filed by the complainant herself like copy of agreement between the parties, a site plan money receipts of labour charges, various colour photographs of construction for showing negligence on the part of the OP sides. All the documents have been compared with original ones. Thereafter, Ld. Advocate for the complainant made oral argument in support of his case.

Points for determination/Issues

1.  Whether the complainant is a consumer as per definition of the term ‘Consumer’ of the C.P Act. ?
2. Whether this Commission has jurisdiction to try this case?
3. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps?
4. Whether the complainant is entitled to get any other relief or reliefs as prayed for?

 

Decision with reasons

Point No. 1:

            In this case, the deceased Subrata Kumar Mondal who purchased the insurance policy No. 432700/48/2019/211 from OP No. 2 through OP No. 1 on payment of proper fees and which covered personal accident insurance policy. Thus the complainants who are the legal heirs as well as beneficiary of the deceased insured person are the consumers under the OP Nos. 1 and 2 and Op Nos. 1 and 2 are the service provider. Hence, the complainants are the consumers as per Sec. 2(1)d(ii) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

Point No. 2:

            Pecuniary jurisdiction of this Forum/Commission as per Sec. 11(1) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 i.e. Rs. 20,00,000/-. OP No. 2, Suri Branch situated in Birbhum District i.e. within the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum/Commission as per Sec. 11(2) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. So, this Forum/Commission has territorial and pecuniary jurisdiction.

In this case, the cause of action arose from 22/05/2019 and later on 02/08/2019 and the case has been filed on 26/08/2019 and as such it can be said that the complainant has filed this case within the statutory period of the C.P. Act, 1986 and as such the instant complaint is not barred by limitation U/S 24A of the C.P. Act, 1986.

Point No. 3:

In the instant case, after the demise of Subrata Kumar Mondal, insured person the complainants file an insurance claim vide claim No. 432700/48/2020/000041 before the OP members along with relevant documents such as: Death Certificate, First information Report No. 08/19 dated 11/01/2019, copy of letter to IC, Rampurhat PS dated 11/01/2019 Cremation Certificate form S.D. Hospital, Rampurhat dated 12/01/2019, Corpse Cremation Certificate from kharun Gram Panchayat, Dated 17/01/2019, Post-Mortem Report vide P.M. No. 26 dated 12/01/2019.

OP No. 2 sent a repudiation letter dated 22/05/2019 to OP No. 1.

It is necessary to mention that none of the OP members informed the complaints of the cause of repudiation of such insurance claim.

We have examined the P.M. report and FIR concerned. From those appears it is established that the victim met with an accident and he succumbed to fatal injury resulting in his death.

Moreover, after receiving the summons/notice none appears from OP members before this Commission. No written version has yet been filed by the OP members. Thus the evidence filed by the complainants runs as unchallenged testimony.

We find in such circumstances on the basis of the said fact as well as ruling as reported in 2012(2) CPR 273(NC) wherein it was held that bonafide insurance claim cannot be dismissed on hyper technical

ground as such, we hold that the complainant will be entitled to get the relief as prayed for.

 

 

 

The OP members on several occasions harassed the complainant and did not pay Rs. 5,00,000/-(Five lakh only) as the personal accident insurance claim to the beneficiary complainants. It is proved beyond all reasonable doubt that there is/was deficiency in service as per    Sec. 2(1)(g) of the C.P. Act, 1986 as well as unfair trade practice as per Sec. 2(1)(r) of the C.P. Act, 1986 on the part of the OP members.

Point No. 4:

From the documentary evidence as available in the case record it is crystal clear that the complainants are the beneficiaries of the said policy.

As in this case, it is proved that there is deficiency in service on the part of the OP members.

Hence, the complainant is entitled to get relief or compensation as prayed for.

Thus, all the points are decided in favour of the complainant.

Complaint is sufficiently stamped and proved beyond all reasonable doubts.

Hence, it is,

            O R D E R E D,

                                        that the instant C.F. Case No. 77/2019 be and same is allowed in exparte with cost.

The OP Nos. 1 and 2 are jointly or severally directed to pay Rs. 5,00,000/- (Five lakh only) as insurance claim to the complainant along with interest thereon @ 9% per annum calculated on and from 26/08/2019 (i.e. from the date of filing of this case ) till realization. The OP Nos. 1 and 2 are also jointly/severally directed to pay Rs. 10,000/- (Ten thousand only) to the complainant/petitioner as against mental agony and harassment to the complainant and pay Rs. 5,000/- (Five thousand only) to the complainant as cost of litigation.

The entire decree will be complied by the OP Nos. 1 and 2 within 45 (Forty five) days from this date of order, in default the complainant is at liberty to put this order to execution in accordance with law.

 The instant case is thus disposed of.

Let a copy of this order be given/handed over to the parties to this case free of cost.