Hon’ble Mr. Ajeya Matilal, Judicial Member.
Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the Judgment dt.27.06.2019 passed by Ld. DCDRC, Hooghly Chinsura allowing the CC/164/2017 against o.p. nos.2 & 3 being the present Appellant Nos.1 & 2 directing them to pay Rs.3 lakhs as sum assured with interest of 9% from the date of claim and Rs.6000/- as litigation cost and said Appellant Nos.1 & 2 they preferred this appeal.
The fact of the case in short is that the brother of the complainant viz. Prahbhat Chakraborty, since deceased, during his lifetime insured himself with a Rural Postal Life Insurance Policy from o.p. no.3 of the complaint case, being the Post Master, Chinsura Post Office vide RPLI policy no.0000000796799 for a sum of Rs.3 lakhs only on payment of first premium of Rs.735/- vide receipt dt.28.12.2016. The said Prabhat Chakaraborty nominated the complainant as his nominee in respect of the insurance policy. During continuation of the said policy Prabhat Chakraborty died on 22.01.2017 due to C.V.A. which would reveal from the death certificate issued by the doctor. Thereafter, the complainant after a considerable period, informed the matter to o.p. no.3. Being advised by o.p. no.3 the complainant informed the death news of his brother to o.p. no.2 by a letter dt.23.03.2017. But in spite of receiving the same o.p. did not take any step for settlement of the policy claim and did not issue any claim form in favour of the complainant.
Thereafter the complainant sent a legal notice to o.p. no.2 on 04.04.2017 and also on 11.04.2017 to o.p. nos.2 & 3 through her Ld. Advocate for settlement of the claim intimating the death news of her brother. But o.p. no.2 did not make any contact with the complainant. Thereafter the complainant collected a claim form from o.p. no.3, filled up the same and visited the office of o.p. no.2 but, o.p. no.2 refused to receive the claim form and documents and advised her to submit the same through o.p. no.3, but, o.p. no.3 also refused to receive the same. Thereafter, on 25.04.2017 the complainant sent the original claim form along with relevant documents through a letter by courier service to the o.ps. After receiving the same, o.p. no.1 sent a letter to o.p. no.2 requesting him to take necessary steps. Copy of the same was forwarded to the complainant. Thereafter o.p. no.2 sent all the documents along with the claim form to o.p. no.3, but o.p. no.3 returned back the documents along with the original claim form to the complainant. The complainant immediately went to the office of o.p. nos.2 & 3, but they did not provide with any satisfactory reply to the complainant. So, the complainant filed the instant case with a prayer for directing the o.ps. jointly and severally to pay Rs.3 lakhs towards the insurance claim against the policy along with interest @ 18% p.a. with effect from 23.03.2017 and also for compensation of Rs.1 lakh for mental agony and Rs.10,000/- for litigation cost.
The o.p. nos.2 & 3 contested the complaint case by filing W/V denying the allegations of the complaint along with the technical pleas. According to the o.ps., the death claim application of the complainant was sent to CPC Chinsura Head Office for processing the claim on 28.04.2017. The Post Master, Chinsura Post Office being o.p. no.3 vide its letter dt.09.05.2017 asked the complainant to resubmit the same with claim application in original after filing it properly with list of documents. But the complainant did not submit the same and a reminder was also issued by o.p. no.3 on 16.08.2017, but the complainant instead of submitting the same filed the instant case.
Ld. DCDRC, Chinsura, Hooghly framed four issues/points for consideration:
- Whether the complainant Lakshmi Bairagi Das is a consumer of o.ps.?
- Whether this Commission has pecuniary jurisdiction to try the case?
- Whether the o.ps. carried on unfair trade practice/rendered in deficiency in service towards the complainant?
- Whether the complainant proved her case against the o.ps., as alleged and whether the o.ps. liable for compensation to her?
Ld. DCDRC, Chinsura, Hooghly decided point nos. (1) & (2) in favour of the complainant. Those points were not agitated by the appellant in course of hearing of the appeal. It appears that the complainant was valued at Rs.4 lakhs for loss sustained by the complainant and also for compensation for mental agony and other expenses ad volerum which is within Rs.20 lakhs the limit of the DCDRC. Ld. DCDRC, Hooghly also held that being nominee of the said Prabhat Chakraborty who insured with Rural Postal Life Insurance Policy, the complainant filed this case. So, the complainant is a consumer. In course of argument Appellant did not challenge the findings of the DCDRC, Hooghly in respect of point nos.(1) & (2).
Ld. Advocate for Appellant submitted that Postal Department became suspicious regarding the authenticity of the insured, so they verified the same, a letter was written to the District Magistrate/District Election Officer, Hooghly for verification of Epic card of the insured on 19.03.2018 being Epic no.GEY2779544 and after such verification the District Election Officer found a report to the effect that the said Epic card belong to another person. Ld. Advocate for Appellant also assailed the death certificate issued by Dr. Tarak Chandra Roy, DMBS, and according to him, it has no value as the Epic card of the insured was not a genuine one.
The complainant in her evidence by way of affidavit stated that said Prabhat Chakraborty during his life time insured his life with Rural Postal Insurance Policy from o.p. no.3 vide the aforesaid policy for a sum of Rs.3 lakhs on payment of first premium of Rs.735/- dt.28.12.2016. That fact has not been disputed or denied. It was also not disputed that the present complainant is not the nominee of the deceased. It appears that the complainant approached the o.p. no.2 for issuing a claim form with a view to settle the claim, but o.p. no.2 did not provide with any satisfactory reply, so, the complainant served the legal notice. After waiting for a long period, the complainant collected a claim form o.p. no.3 and after filing of the same with relevant documents, she visited the office of o.p. no.2 for submitting the same, but o.p. no.2 refused to receive the said claim along with relevant documents. Subsequently, on 25.04.2017 the complainant sent the original claim form by courier service to o.p. no.2 along with photocopy of all such documents. The claim forms were also sent to o.p. nos.1 & 3 which were received by them.
It appears that the Postal Life Gram Santosh (Endowment Assurance) Policy was issued in the name of Prahbhat Chakraborty, since deceased and date of commencement of risk was 20.12.2016 and the sum assured was Rs.3 lakhs, date of proposal was 20.12.2016, amount of premium was of Rs.735/- which was paid and the policy was issued on 02.01.2017 by the Post Master. During the continuance of the policy, the policy holder died on 22.01.2017 due to cardiac arrest and the death certificate was issued by Dr. Tarak Chandra Roy and another date certificate was also issued by Hooghly Chinsura Municipality and the claimant /complainant was the nominee in connection with the said policy.
The o.ps. in their written version as well as written notes of argument submitted before the Ld. DCDRC, Hooghly nowhere assailed the entitlement of sum assured in respect of the policy. In the written version it was stated that they asked the complainant to resubmit the claim form, but the complainant failed to do so. Subsequently, they could not settle the claim of the complainant. But it would reveal from the written notes of argument filed by o.ps. before the Ld. DCDRC, Hooghly that the complainant filed the claim form on 25.04.2017 and it was sent to CRC Chinsura Head Office for processing the claim on 28.04.2017. It would reveal from the letter dt.08.05.2017 of Asstt. Divisional Manager (PLI) W.B. Circle, Kolkata-700012 that the photocopy of LI9 policy bond acceptance letter, death certificate, first copy of premium receipt and the claimant’s Aadhar Card were received in respect of the aforesaid policy which were forwarded for taking necessary action by the Superintendant of Police, North Hooghly Division, Chinsura. But in spite of getting all such documents o.p. no.2 failed to take necessary steps in respect of settlement of claim.
So, I am of the view that Ld. DCDRC, Chinsura, Hooghly rightly considered that there was deficiency in service on that part of o.ps. Ld. DCDRC, Chinsura, Hooghly decided the point no.4 in favour of the complainant rightly considering the evidence on record.
So, in the light of the aforesaid discussion I am of the opinion that there is no illegality in the impugned judgment passed by Ld. DCDRC Chinsura Hooghly and the impugned judgment does not require any interference from this Commission.
Accordingly, the A/722/2019 is dismissed on contest without cost.
The impugned order is upheld. Order of stay, if there is any, in connection with the said appeal stands vacated.
Let a copy of this order be sent to Ld. DCDRC, Chinsura Hooghly for information and necessary action.
