Skip to content


Jewel Barua Vs. the Regional Manager, National Insurance Co. Ltd. and Others - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citation
CourtAssam State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Gauhati
Decided On
Case NumberComplaint Petition No. 62 of 1993
Judge
AppellantJewel Barua
RespondentThe Regional Manager, National Insurance Co. Ltd. and Others
Excerpt:
indian limitation act, 1963 - article 44(i) - result: petition disposed of. comparative citations: 1993 (3) cpj 1694, 1994 (1) cpj 72.....2. late gobindlal barua died of accidental burn injuries on 1.1.1990 at guwahati and the death certificate dated 1.1.1990 is at annexure-i to the petition. according to the petitioner it was not known to her that such a policy was taken by her husband and in the month of september, 1992 while she along with her brother-in-law were going through the old papers of the deceased, the policy was discovered. the policy was taken on 1.4.1989 and was valid upto 2.4.1990. after knowing about the fact of this policy the petitioner lodged a claim in the noonmati branch of the company and the branch manager referred the matter to the divisional manager. it has been stated that when the petitioner along with her brother-in-law visited the office of the company on several occasions she was.....
Judgment:

S.N. Phukan, President:

1. This petition has been filed by Mrs. Jewel Barua widow of Late Gobindlal Barua against National Insurance Company and its officials as the Insurance Company refused to pay a sum of Rs. 5,00,000/- under Personal Accident Insurance (Insurance Policy vide Annexure II to the petition).

2. Late Gobindlal Barua died of accidental burn injuries on 1.1.1990 at Guwahati and the death certificate dated 1.1.1990 is at Annexure-I to the petition. According to the petitioner it was not known to her that such a policy was taken by her husband and in the month of September, 1992 while she along with her brother-in-law were going through the old papers of the deceased, the policy was discovered. The policy was taken on 1.4.1989 and was valid upto 2.4.1990. After knowing about the fact of this policy the petitioner lodged a claim in the Noonmati Branch of the Company and the Branch Manager referred the matter to the Divisional Manager. It has been stated that when the petitioner along with her brother-in-law visited the Office of the Company on several occasions she was asked to produce the death certificate to show that the death was due to accident. Accordingly, original death certificate was submitted along with a certificate from the Deputy Commissioner and Superintendent of Police certifying that the cause of death was accident. Inspite of several reminders, the claim was not settled. Hence the present petition.

3. The Insurance Company has taken plea that this Commission has no jurisdiction and it is a matter for Civil Court. It has been denied that death of Late Gobindalal Baruah was due to accident and that complainant was not aware of the policy. According to the Insurance Company, it was a mysterious death and no police was informed and no post-mortem was also performed.

4. Heard Mrs. B. Dutta, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. A.R. Banerjee, learned Counsel for the Insurance Company.

5. The only point urged by Mr. Banerjee is that in view of Article 44 of the Indian Limitation Act, the present claim barred by limitation. The said Article is quoted below:—

“44(a)On a policy of insurance three years when the sum insured is payable after proof of the death has been given to or received by the insurers.The date of the death of deceased, or where the claim on the policy is denied either partly or wholly, the date of such denial.
(b)On a policy of insurance three years when the sum insured is payable after proof of the loss has been given to or received by the insurers.The date of the occurrence causing the loss, or where the claim on the policy is denied either partly or wholly, the date of denied”.
According to Mr. Banerjee, the present claim would come under Clause (b) of Article 44 of the Limitation Act. Mr. Banerjee has placed reliance in a few decisions but on going through the said decisions we are unable to find out that this point at all decided.

6. Clause (a) of Article 44 clearly mentions regarding policy of insurance when sum insured is payable after proof of death whereas according to Clause (b) policy of insurance is regarding loss. Mr. Banerjee has urged that as under the present policy, the Insurance Company was liable to pay for loss of any limb of the body it will come under Clause (b). We are unable to accept the submission of the learned Counsel as in our opinion Clause (b) would cover cases of loss of goods etc. Clause (a) will cover, in our opinion, any policy of insurance taken in respect of a person covering his life. The present policy which is at Annexure-II to this petition not only covers loss of any limb of the body but also of the death of the person. Not only that, under this policy the Insurance Company shall also reimburse the expenses incurred for transportation of the dead-body to the place of residence subject to a maximum of 25% of the capital sum insured or Rs. 1,000/- whichever is less. Therefore, we are unable to accept the submission of learned Counsel.

7. As the present policy is covered by Clause (a) of Article 44 of the Limitation Act, the period of limitation is three years and the time begins from the date of death of the deceased or where the claim on the claim is denied either partly or wholly, from the date of such denial.

8. In the case in hand, the Insurance Company has not filed any document to show that at any point of time the claim was denied. On the other hand, the letter dated 30.9.91 issued by the Senior Divisional Manager to the petitioner has been placed before us and by the said letter the claimant was asked to furnish some information and documents and as there is no denial of the claim, the present petition is not barred by limitation. It may be stated that Mr. Banerjee has urged that a time-barred claim cannot be entertained by this Commission. There is no dispute on this point. But in the present case as we have held that the claim was never denied and it is not barred by limitation, the present petition can be entertained. Incidentally we may say that this point of limitation was never taken in the objection filed by the Insurance Company.

9. From the death certificate issued by the Registrar, Department of Surgery, Guwahati Medical College Hospital, it appears that the death was due to 75% burn-injuries. Annexure-III is a certificate issued on 8.8.90 by the Deputy Commissioner, Kamrup at Guwahati and in the said certificate it has been elaborately stated how the accident took place. The Deputy Commissioner being satisfied that death was due to accident, the post-mortem examination was also dispensed with. Annexure-IV is a certificate issued by the Superintendent of Police on 14.6.91 certifying that death was due to accidental burninjuries. Therefore, we have no hesitation in holding. that death was due to accident, namely, burn-injuries, and therefore, the plea taken by the Insurance. Company that cause of death was mysterious is not tenable.

10. For the reasons stated above, we hold that the petitioner is entitled to get a sum of Rs. 5,00,000/- as per Insurance Policy (Annexure-II) as death occurred during the validity of the policy. Accordingly, the respondents are directed to pay the amount immediately and positively within a period of three months failing which the claimant shall be entitled to interest @ 12% per annum on the above sum.

11. Petition is disposed of.

Petition disposed of.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organize Client Files //