NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LTD Vs. P V KAMALAKSHMI AMMA AND ORS
KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LTD
P V Kamalakshmi Amma And Ors
Click here to view full judgement.
(1.) APPELLANT was the second opposite party and respondents 1 to 5 were the complainants and the 6th respondent was the first opposite party in OP.335/03 on the file of CDRF, Kozhikode. The said complaint was filed alleging deficiency in service on the part of the second opposite party New India Assurance Company Ltd. in not disbursing the insurance amount due under the privilege insurance policy issued by the second opposite party in favour of the subscribers of the first opposite party Asianet Satellite Communications Private Ltd. The opposite parties 1 and 2 entered appearance and filed separate versions contending that there was no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties and that the complainants being the close relations and legal heirs of the insured are not entitled to benefit under the said policy. They also contended that the forum below is not having the territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint in OP.335/03. Thus, the opposite parties prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
(2.) BEFORE the Forum below, on the side of the complainant, the second complainant was examined as PW1 and Exts.A1 to A17 were marked on their side. No oral evidence was adduced from the side of the opposite parties. Ext.B1 copy of the master policy agreement entered into between the opposite parties 1 and 2 was marked on the side of the opposite parties. On an appreciation of the evidence on record, the Forum below passed the impugned order dated 26.5.05 directing the second opposite party/New India Assurance Company Ltd. to disburse the insurance amount of Rs.2 lakhs to the complainants with 12% interest per annum from the date of the complaint till realization with a further direction to pay compensation of Rs.5,000/ -. Aggrieved by the said order, the present appeal is filed by the second opposite party therein.
(3.) WE heard the learned counsel for the appellant/second opposite party and the respondents 1 to 5 (complainants). There was no representation for the 6th respondent/first opposite party. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted his arguments based on the grounds urged in the memorandum of the present appeal. He much relied on B1 master policy agreement entered into between the opposite parties 1 and 2 and also A1 Privilege Insurance Enrolment Forum and argued for the position that the Forum below had no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint in OP.335/03 and that the complainants being the close relatives and legal heirs of the insured are not entitled to get the benefits under the Privilege Insurance Policy issued by the appellant/second opposite party. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents 1 to 5/complainants supported the impugned order passed by the Forum below. He vehemently argued for the position that in the absence of the class 1 heirs of the insured, the complainants being the class 2 heirs of the insured are entitled to get the benefits under the policy. He further submitted that there is no provision in the policy to debar the complainants from receiving the benefits under the policy. Thus, the respondents 1 to 5 requested for dismissal of the present appeal.
The points that arise for consideration are: -
1. Whether the Forum below had the jurisdiction to entertain the complaint in OP.335/03?
2. Whether the complainants in OP.335/03 are entitled to get the benefit under the privilege insurance policy issued by the second opposite party/New India Assurance Company Ltd. in favour of the subscribers of the first opposite party/Asianet Satellite Communication Private Ltd?
3. Is there any legally sustainable ground to interfere with the impugned order dated 26.5.05 passed by CDRF, Kozhikode in OP.335/03?;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.