NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO LTD Vs. SOOSAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Aggrieved by the order of the District Forum, Kanyakumari District, the opposite party New India Assurance Company has preferred this appeal. The complainant's case is as follows: The complainant's son died at Tuticorin on 11.5.1996 in a communal fighting in Tuticorin in May, 1996 between Nadars and Bharathars. At that time, police had resorted to shooting to control the mob. A bullet pierced through the back into the chest of Ravikumar, the complainant's son. The said Ravikumar was a registered member of Keela Muttom Co-operative Fisheries Sangam. As a member thereof, he was insured under a group insurance policy of the Sangam. The complainant is the nominee under the said policy. The complainant approached the opposite party to settle the claim. The opposite party demanded some documents relating to the death of Ravikumar. On 7.6.1998 the complainant sent a notice through his Counsel to the opposite party. The death of Ravikumar was an accidental one. The complainant is a poor man. There is deficiency in service. Hence the complaint.

(2.) The opposite party contended as follows: It is true that one Ravikumar died on 11.5.1996 in Police shooting. It is not admitted that the complainant is the nominee under the said policy. It is also not admitted that he is the only heir. There are nine persons including the complainant who are the legal heirs of the deceased Ravikumar. Further, as per the policy, the nominee was the deceased's mother Santhammal and not the complainant. The death was intimated only on 12.5.1997 after one year from the date of the death of Ravikumar. Only subsequently, relevant documents were submitted. As per condition No.1 of the policy, the insured should within one calendar month after the event give written notice to the Insurance Company with full particulars. In this case, the complainant had submitted the intimation letter only after one year. The post-mortem certificate was submitted only on 20.1.1998. There was no delay on the part of the opposite party. There was no deficiency in service. As per the report of the Tahsildar, Tuticorin, Ravikumar was shot dead while he was involved in criminal offences against law. Therefore, as per condition No.1, the company is not liable to make any payment. Hence there is no deficiency in service. The repudiation is, therefore, in order. The other averments made in the complaint are denied.

(3.) The lower Forum directed the opposite party to disburse the Group Insurance amount of Rs.25,000/- to the deceased Ravikumar's mother with interest at 12% p. a. from 14.1.1999 till realization.