R.S.Sharma, J. (President) - (1.) THIS appeal is directed against order dated 23.3.2013, passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Raipur (C.G.) (henceforth District Forum") in Complaint Case No. 138/2011. By the impugned order, learned District Forum, has partly allowed the complaint and directed the appellant (O.P. No. 1) (Insurance Company) to pay a sum of Rs. 5,00,000 along with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of filing of the complaint i.e. 6.4.2011 till the date of payment. The Insurance Company has further been directed to pay a sum of Rs. 10,000 as compensation for mental agony and Rs. 3,000 as Advocate fees and cost of litigation to the respondents Nos. 1 to 3 (complainants). Learned District Forum fastened the liability to pay the compensation upon the appellant (O.P. No. 1) (Insurance Company) and exonerated the respondent No. 2 (O.P. No. 2) (Bank) from the liability of paying any compensation to the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 (complainants).
(2.) BRIEFLY stated, the facts of the case of the complaint filed before the District Forum are that late Lalit Kumar Verma, was husband of the respondent No. 1 (complainant No. 1) and father of respondent No. 2 (complainant No. 2) and respondent No. 3 (complainant No. 3), who are minor. Late Lalit Kumar Verma was posted as Shiksha Karmi Verg -02 in Government Middle School, Sirri since 5.8.2006. From 26.4.2010 to 28.4.2010 he was deputed for census work at Block Tilda. On the date of incident, he was returning from Tilda and parked his motorcycle near railway crossing and was crossing railway line for urination, at that time he came to contact of a train and on account of this he died on the spot. The matter was reported to Rail Police Chowki, Bhatapara on 28.4.2010. The deceased Lalit Kumar Verma opened an bank account in Dena Bank, Kharora and obtained insurance policy for the sum assured Rs. 5,00,000 and his account No. was 5 B/E.D.U./100385. A sum of Rs. 100 was deducted toward premium from his account. After death of Lalit Kumar Verma, the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 (complainants) submitted claim before the appellant (O.P. No. 1) (Insurance Company but the appellant (O.P. No. 1) (Insurance Company) informed the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 (complainants) that their claim was closed and the Insurance Company has repudiated the claim of the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 (complainants) and thus committed deficiency in service, hence the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 (complainant) filed consumer complaint before the District Forum. The appellant (O.P. No. 1) (Insurance Company) filed written statement before the District Forum and pleaded that the District Forum has no jurisdiction to try the case. The appellant (O.P. No. 1) (Insurance Company) appointed an Investigator in the matter. On the basis of the Investigation Report, the claim of the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 (complainants) was closed. In the investigation, it was found that the deceased insured was unauthorized crossing the railway line and due to negligence of the deceased himself the accident took place and he died, which is apparently violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy, therefore, the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 (complainants) are not entitled for getting any compensation from the appellant (O.P. No. 1) (Insurance Company). The appellant (O.P. No. 1) further pleaded that the deceased insured was suffering from mental disorder and he was unsoundness of mind and he was under treatment prior to last two years from the date of his death and the Insurance Policy was obtained by him after suppressing material facts, therefore, the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 (complainants) are not entitled to get any compensation from the appellant (O.P. No. 1) (Insurance company) under the insurance policy and the appellant (O.P. No. 1) (Insurance Company) has rightly repudiated the claim of the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 (complainants).
(3.) THE respondent No. 2 (O.P. No. 2) (Bank) filed its written statement before the District Forum and denied the allegations levelled by the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 (complainant) in the complaint. The respondent No. 2 (O.P. No. 2) pleaded that the deceased insured himself was negligent in crossing railway line unauthorizedly and he himself was responsible for his death. The respondent No. 2 (O.P. No. 2) (Bank obtaining insurance policy for its account holders and being an account holder, the policy was obtained for the deceased Lalit Kumar Verma from the appellant (O.P. No. 1) Insurance Company) and premium of Rs. 100 was paid to the appellant (O.P. No. 1) (Insurance Company), therefore, the respondent No. 2 (O.P. No. 1) (Bank) did not commit any deficiency in service and the complaint is liable to be dismissed against the respondent No. 2 (O.P. No. 2) (Bank).;