State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission The Divisional Manager, The New India ... vs Smt. Sushmita Maity, Wife Of Late Manoj ... on 7 October, 2013 State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission West Bengal BHABANI BHAVAN (GROUND FLOOR) 31, BELVEDERE ROAD, ALIPORE KOLKATA 700 027 S.C. CASE NO FA/309/2013 (Arisen out of Order dated 06/02/2013 in Case No. CC/47/2012 of District Purba Medinipur, Purba Medinipur DF) DATE OF FILING :20.03.2013 DATE OF ORDER: 07.10.2013 APPELLANTS : 1. The Divisional Manager, The New India Assurance Company Ltd., Haldia Divisional Office at Khanjanchak, Post Office and Police StationDurgachak, DistrictPurba Medinipore. RESPONDENTS : 1. Smt. Sushmita Maity, Wife of Late Manoj Maity, Residing at VillageGuluria, Post OfficeMecheda, Police StationKolaghat, DistrictPurba Medinipore, West Bengal : 2. The Manager, PROFORMA RESPONDENT Golden Trust Financial Services Ltd., 16, R.N. Mukherjee Road, Kolkata700 001. BEFORE HONBLE MEMBER : Sri Debasis Bhattacharya HONBLE MEMBER : Sri Jaganatth Bag FOR THE APPELLANT : 1. Mr. Pralay Kar, Ld. Advocate, FOR THE RESPONDENT 1 : 1. Mr. Samir Bera, Ld. Advocate FOR THE (PROFORMA) RESPONDENT 2 : 1. Mr. Avik Dutt, Ld. Advocate ________________________________________________________________________ MR. DEBASIS BHATTACHARYA, MEMBER Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the Final Order dated 06.02.2013 in case No. 47/2012, passed by the Ld. District Forum, Purba Medinipur, the OP No. 1 thereof has preferred this appeal. By the impugned order, the Ld. District Forum has allowed the case on contest against the OP No. 1, directing it to pay Rs.1,00,000/ (Rupees one lakh) to the Complainant being accidental insurance benefit together with compensation of Rs.6,000/ (Rupees six thousand) and litigation cost of Rs.1,000/ (Rupees one thousand) within 45 days from the date of communication of the order, i.d., the Complainant is at liberty to execute the order in accordance with law in which case the OP No.1 shall be liable to pay interest @ 10% p.a. over the total awarded amount from the date of the order till full and final settlement. The short case of the Complainant, in the petition of complainant, is that, her husband Manoj Kumar Maity, died in an electric shock in course of his employment at Birsingha under P.S. Ghatal on 13.05.2010. He purchased one Janata Personal Accident Policy No.4751170000001/4751170030054, valid from 23.12.200 to 22.12.2015, of the OP No.1, through the OP No.2. A letter was sent to the OP No.1 by the OP No.2 under Ref. No. GTFS/CLAIMS/SKB/JPA/03501 dated 27.07.2010 for early settlement of the file. In spite of further letter through OP No.2 for early settlement of the said JPA policy, the OP No.1 did not take any action. Lastly, the OP No.1 has sent a letter bearing Ref. No.KDU511700/GTFS/Legal/2012 dated 11.10.2012 stating that due to nonsubmission of evidence in respect of Investor/Fieldworker of M/s Golden Trust Financial Services against the Policyholder, they are unable to settle the claim and the claim is disposed as No Claim. Accordingly, the complaint case. On the other hand, the case of the OP No.1, in its W.V., is that it issued Group Policy, i.e., Master Policy for many persons stated to be the Investors/Fieldworkers/Staff of the G.T.F.S. and the policy was so issued with utmost good faith on the declaration of the OP No.2 at the time of issuance of policy by the OP No.1. As per MoU dated 30.12.1998 in between the G.T.F.S. and the New India Assurance Co. Ltd., the G.T.F.S. will give Janata Personal Accident (JPA) Insurance coverage to the Investors/Fieldworkers/Agents and their Family Members. But, it was found that the G.T.F.S. issued such JPA coverage to the public in general who are not Investors/Fieldworkers/Agents and Friends, even numerous Government/SemiGovernment/PSU, etc., employees got such JPA coverage as Fieldworkers, although as per statutory law, they cannot act as Fieldworkers. In view of cancellation of the MoU, the G.T.F.S. moved W.P. No. 1144/1999 before the Honble Calcutta High Court, in which it was directed to the G.T.F.S. not to collect any premium from the categories of Friends/Associates. Accordingly, the OP asked the Claimant/G.T.F.S. to furnish certain documents for early processing of the claim. In the present case, the OP asked the G.T.F.S. and the Complainant for documents to prove connection of the insured with G.T.F.S. as Investor/Fieldworker/Staff, vide letter dated 12.08.2011, but neither G.T.F.S. nor the Complainant supplied such documents. In fine, it prayed for dismissal of the case. The case of the OP No.3, in its W.V