The complainant has filed the complaint alleging deficiency of service against the O.P. in not giving group insurance amount of Rs.1,00,000/- an account of accidental death of her husband while working. The complainants case in brief are that her husband Guruswamy was working as G angmen with O.P.1 &2. The O.P.1 & 2 had taken group insurance from O.P.3 to their workers. The O.P.3 to give Rs.1,00,000/- in case of accidental death of an employee while working with O.P.1 & 2. The group insurance was in force when the complainants husband died while repairing transformer on 23/06/2006. The complainant gave an application to O.P.1 to
The complainant has filed the complaint alleging deficiency of service against the O.P. in not giving group insurance amount of Rs.1,00,000/- an account of accidental death of her husband while working. The complainants case in brief are that her husband Guruswamy was working as G angmen with O.P.1 &2. The O.P.1 & 2 had taken group insurance from O.P.3 to their workers. The O.P.3 to give Rs.1,00,000/- in case of accidental death of an employee while working with O.P.1 & 2. The group insurance was in force when the complainants husband died while repairing transformer on 23/06/2006. The complainant gave an application to O.P.1 to 3 to pay group insurance amount. A suit in O.S.203/2006 was filed against the complainant and O.P.1 & 2 which came to be dismissed on 07/06/2011, in which the complainant has been declared as wife of Late Guruswamy. The O.Ps. 1 & 2 have admitted the working of Late Guru Swamy and also his accidental death while on duty. The O.P.1 & 2 have also admitted about group insurance taken from O.P.3. They have also admitted about suit filed against them and the complainant. They have denied other allegations made by the complainant against them. The O.P.3 has denied that O.P.1 & 2 had taken the Janatha Insurance Policy bearing no.60200/42/06/02/0000008G208 covering risk of Guruswamy. The O.P.3 had put the complainant in strict proof of the allegations made by her. During the course of hearing the policy number was given by the O.P.1 & 2 on 11/10/2012 and O.P.3 has admitted that the group insurance was in force from 16/05/2006 till 15/05/2007 and it had covered deceased Guru swamy. The following points arises for consideration. Whether the complainant has shown the deficiency of service by the O.Ps.? To what order the parties are entitled? The findings for the above points are as follows: Point No.1: Affirmative in part. Point No.2 : As per order. REASONS POINT NO.1:- The admitted facts are that Guruswamy, husband of the complainant was working with O.P.1 & 2. He died on 23/06/2006 while repairing the transformer and a complaint was lodged in respect of his death and showed that Guruswamy died while he was repairing the transformer which was an accidental death. A suit was filed against the complainant as well as O.P.1 & 2 in O.S.203/2006 which came to be dismissed on 07/06/2011 holding that the complainant is the legal heir of late Guru swamy and temporary injunction was in force not to disburse the amount to complainant till the disposal of the suit. The learned counsel appearing for the O.P.3 has submitted that the complaint is to be dismissed in view of limitation as the death has takenplace in 2006 and the complaint has been filed in 2012, as it is barred under section 24 of C.P. Act. The above arguments of the learned counsel appearing for O.P.3 cannot be taken into consideration for the reasons that such a contention has not been taken by the O.P.3 in the version filed by it. Even otherwise the suit has been filed by other relatives of the deceased Guruswamy in O.S.203/2006 against the complainant and O.P.1 & 2 not to disburse any amount to the legal heirs of Late Guru Swamy and temporary injunction granted on 21/11/2006 not to disburse the amount was in force till 07/06/2011 on which date suit was dismissed. This shows that the complainant had right to file the complaint only after dismissal of the suit and therefore her complaint is not barred by time. The complainant had given an application to the O.P.1 & 2 for payment of group insurance . It is an admitted fact that the O.P.1 & 2 had taken group insurance from O.P.3 and O.P.1 & 2 should have taken steps to get amount and deposited the amount till disposal of suit filed by legal heirs of late Guruswamy against the complainant and them. The O.P.1 & 2 have not given necessary claim form to O.P.3 till today to claim one lakh rupees for the accidental death of Guru swamy. O.P.1 & 2 even after filing of the complaint have not taken steps to send the claim form to the O.P.3 for claiming group insurance. The claim form has been taken back from the Forum in order to claim the group insurance amount from the O.P.3 by O.P.1 & 2. The above shows that there is deficiency of service by the O.P. 1 & 2. in not claiming the group insurance amount which the complainant is entitled. It had to be said that there is no deficiency of service by O.P.3 as O.P.1&2 have not sent the claim form to O.P.3. In view of the above point no.1 is held affirmative in part. POINT NO.2:- The Forum has come to the conclusion that there is deficiency of service by O.P.1 & 2 in not claiming the group insurance though the complainants husband had been covered under insurance at the time of his accidental death. The O.P.1 & 2 even after filing the complaint in 2012 have not taken steps to claim the group insurance to which the complainant is entitled. This shows the way in which the O.P.1 & 2 officials are working. In otherwords there is gross negligence and lethargic attitude of the officials and further it also shows their concern to the complainants family of an official who met with accidental death. The death has taken place on 23/06/2006 the claim form has not been sent by the officials of O.P.1 & 2 even after filing of the complaint. This also shows the way how O.P.1 & 2 is working and further it shows the maladministration on the part of the officials who are at the helm of affairs. It also shows that the concerned officials have not shown concern to the family of the employee who died while discharging his work from 2006 till today. Section 14(1)(d) contains the proviso empowering the redressal Forum to grant punitive damages in such circumstances, as it deems fit. The punitive damages are also referred as exemplary damages. How punitive / exemplary damages are different from that of ordinary damages, it is necessary to understand the lexical and legal meanings of these expressions. Damages means a sum of money claimed or awarded in compensation for loss or injury . The dictionary meaning of loss is getting deprived to have some thing by negligence and it may be a person, thing or amount lost. Generally injury is understood as physical harms but in legal parlance it is a damage caused due to wrongful action. Punitive damages means damage awarded to inflict punishment on the wrong doer, which means serving as a warning. The intention of awarding punitive damage is not only to compensate the victim substantially but also to see that such punitive damages serve as deterrent on the wrong doer not to repeat the wrong. The redressal Forum do not award punitive damages in all the cases. In cases where the wrong or injury is of grievance nature and arisen due to willful, malicious and negligent conduct of the O.P. then only the provision of awarding punitive damages come into play. In Sovintorg (India) (P) Ltd. Vs State Bank of India (1992) I CPR 833 (NCDRC) the National Commission awarded exemplary damages though there was no provision at that time for award of punitive damages or exemplary damages. As the effect of exemplary damages brings behavioral change in the erring traders or officials because of its severity or harshness, the redressal Forum should award exemplary damages keeping in view of the purpose. The Honble Supreme Court in common cause case held as follows:
Obviously, a small exemplary award would go unnoticed by a rich defendant, while even moderate award might cripple a poor defendant. The conduct of the parties through out the proceedings would also be a relevant consideration in assessing exemplary damages.In the present case accidental death has takenplace on 23/06/2006. Deceased Guruswamy was covered with group insurance. The O.P.1 & 2 have not taken any steps till today to send the claim form to O.P.3 for claiming group insurance of Rs.1,00,000/-. Even after filing of the complaint no steps have been taken by O.P.1 & 2 to send the form to O.P.3. This speaks volume of the conduct of the officials of O.P.1 &2, which necessarily attracts for awarding punitive damages as stated above. It has been stated that while awarding punitive damages the Forum has to take into consideration that a small exemplary award would go unnoticed by rich dependants and in the present case O.P.1 & 2 is a big public undertaking and if a small exemplary award is awarded it will go unnoticed to the Heads of O.P.1 &2 institution and therefore Rs.3.00 lakhs is awarded as punitive damages. Awarding of punitive damage is further supported by the fact that policy had been lost by O.P.1 & 2 and they could give correct number of the policy to the Forum and O.P.3 only on 11/10/2012 much after filing of the complaint. Apart from this the conduct of parties through out the proceedings will have to be taken into consideration and in the present case even after filing of the complaint no steps have been taken by the O.P.1 & 2 to send the claim form to the O.P.3 and this would also make the Forum to award punitive damages of Rs.3.00 lakhs. The O.P.1 & 2 have taken the complainant ride from 2006 till she filing of complaint and also during the pendency of the complaint as they had not given correct policy number, which they gave on 11/10/2012. This also makes the Forum to award punitive damages against O.P.1 & 2. Considering the above reasons and also the conduct of the concerned officials and mal administration of the persons who are at the helm of affairs the punitive damages of Rs.2.00 lakhs is awarded which would serve as deterrent to the O.P. 1&2 and other similar public undertakings. The complainant cannot suffer an account of negligence of O.P.1 & 2 in not claiming insurance to which she is entitled an account of accidental death of her husband and therefore the O.P. 1 & 2 are liable to pay group insurance of Rs.1.00 lakh to the complainant. In view of the above following ORDER Complaint against O.P.3 is dismissed. The complaint is allowed in part against O.P.1 & 2.
1. O.P. 1 &2 shall pay group insurance amount of Rs.1.00 lakh to the complainant along with interest at 8% p.a. from 23/07/2006 till realization.
2. The complainant is also entitled for sum of Rs.50,000/- as compensation out of Rs.3.00 lakhs awarded as punitive damages to O.P.1 & 2 and remaining Rs.2.5 lakhs to be deposited at the Forums Legal Aid Account, which shall be used for legal literacy programme of consumer law. The complainant is also entitled to Rs.5,000/- being the cost of the proceedings. The order shall be complied within 30 days from today.
Comments