PREMA DEVI Vs. NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PREMA DEVI WIDOW OF DECEASED RAMKRISHNA, CHANDRA PRAKASH MINOR SON OF RAM KRISHNA, GYAN PRAKASH MINOR SONOF RAM KRISHNA, KUMARI MAMTA MINOR DAUGHTER OF RAM KRISHNA UNDERGUARDIANSHIP OF MOTHER PREMA DEVI AND MANIYA S/O PANNI FATHER OF RAMKRISHNA FILED THIS COMPLAINT AGAINST THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO LTD,DIVISIONAL OFFICE 2 MALLA BUILDING, ASHOK MARG, LUCKNOW, CHIEF ELECTORALOFFICER, LUCKNOW, DISTRICT ELECTION OFFICER AND DISTRICT MAGISTRATE,FATEHPUR, SUPDT OF POLICE, FATEHPUR AND DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE,LUCKNOW WITH THE ALLEGATION THAT THE HUSBAND OF COMPLAINANT NO 1 PREMADEVI LATE SHRI RAM KRISHNA WAS CONSTABLE IN THE POLICE DEPTT AT PSHATHGAON, DISTRICT FATEHPUR AND HE WAS FATHER OF COMPLAINANT NOS 2 TO 4AND SON OF COMPLAINANT NO 5 IN GENERAL ELECTION FOR ASSEMBLY IN UP INTHE YEAR 1996 THE POLL DATES WERE DECLARED TO BE 30TH SEPT, 3RD OCTOBERAND 7TH OCTOBER, 1996 AND THE PERSONS DEPUTED FOR ELECTION DUTY WEREINSURED WITH THE OPPOSITE PARTY NO 1, THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANYLIMITED THE PERIOD OF INSURANCE WAS FROM 2791996 TO 12101996 WHICHIS APPARENT FROM THE LETTER OF ELECTION DEPARTMENT DATED 2091996 THELETTER HAS BEEN ENCLOSED THE POLICY NUMBER IS 474205 THE INSURANCEPOLICY PROVIDES THAT IN THE GENERAL ELECTION OFFICIAL APPOINTED FORELECTION DUTY FROM 27TH SEPTEMBER, 1996 TO 12TH OCTOBER, 96 IF HE DIESDUE TO ACCIDENT, HE WILL BE PAID RS 5 LACS AS INSURANCE AMOUNT FOR THEINJURIES AND INCAPACITATION DIFFERENT AMOUNTS HAVE BEEN MENTIONED THEDECEASED RAM KRISHNA WAS APPOINTED AT PS HATHGAON, FATEHPUR ASCONSTABLE AND HE WAS DEPUTED FOR ELECTION DUTY TO ALLAHABAD DISTRICT THESUPDT OF POLICE, FATEHPUR VIDE HIS ORDER DATED 2691996 ADDRESSED TOSO HATHGAON ORDERED THAT OFFICIALS DEPUTED FOR ELECTION DUTY WILL HAVETO REPORT AT 16 HOURS ON 2791996 IN POLICE LINE, FATEHPUR AND ALONGWITH OTHER CONSTABLE RAM KRISHNA WAS DEPARTED FOR FATEHPUR POLICE LINETHE CONSTABLE RAM KRISHNA AND OTHER CONSTABLES ARRIVED IN POLICE LINE,FATEHPUR AND GOT THEIR ARRIVAL ENTERED VIDE RAPAT NO 42 AT 21 HRS ON2791996 IN POLICE LINE, FATEHPUR ON 2891996 AT 630 IN THE MORNINGPOLICE PARTY WAS ORDERED TO START FOR ALLAHABAD SINCE POLICE LINE,FATEHPUR WAS CROWDED WITH THE OFFICIALS OF ELECTION DUTY AND TOILET ANDBATHROOM WERE INADEQUATE RAM KRISHNA HUSBAND OF THE COMPLAINANT WENTOUTSIDE THE POLICE STATION TO EASE HIMSELF AND DUE TO ACCIDENTALCOLLISION WITH TRAIN HE DIED WHEN THE ROLL CALL OF THE OFFICIALS ONELECTION DUTY FOR ALLAHABAD WAS HELD RAM KRISHNA WAS NOT THERE AND IT WASINFORMED THAT HE EXPIRED DUE TO ACCIDENT THE DEATH OF RAM KRISHNA DUE TOTHE ABOVE ACCIDENT WAS REPORTED IN GRP FATEHPUR AND HIS POST -MORTEM WASALSO CONDUCTED THE CLAIM TO THE INSURANCE COMPANY WAS FORWARDED BUT THEYREPUDIATED THE CLAIM AND WROTE TO THE COLLECTOR AND DISTRICT ELECTIONOFFICER THAT THE DECEASED WAS NOT ON ELECTION DUTY AT THE TIME OFACCIDENT HINDI MATTER OMITTED IT HAS BEEN ASSERTED IN THE COMPLAINTTHAT HER HUSBAND RAM KRISHNA WAS ON ELECTION DUTY FROM 2791996 ITSELFUNDER ORDER OF THE SP POLICY WAS EFFECTIVE FROM2791996 TO 12101996 ON 2791996 ITSELF THE INSURED REPORTED FORELECTION DUTY IN POLICE LINES, FATEHPUR, HENCE HE WAS ON ELECTION DUTYFROM 2791996 AND ON 2891996 AT 500 AM HE DIED IN ACCIDENT CAUSEDDUE TO THE INJURY BY THE TRAIN, HENCE THE CLAIM IS COVERED BY THEINSURANCE POLICY FURTHER IT HAS BEEN ALLEGED THAT DUE TO DELAY ON THEPART OF THE INSURANCE COMPANY THE COMPLAINT WAS PRESENTED TO THE CONSUMERFORUM AT FATEHPUR ON 611999 THE COMPLAINANT NO 1 IS ILLITERATE LADYAND HIS FATHER -IN -LAW IS ALSO ILLITERATE HER TWO SONS AND DAUGHTER AREMINOR DUE TO LACK OF ADEQUATE LEGAL OPINION, SHE COULD NOT PRESENT THECOMPLAINT BEFORE THE STATE COMMISSION THE DISTRICT FORUM EXPRESSING THATTHE CLAIM WAS ABOVE RS 5 LACS FINDING IT INADMISSIBLE INSTRUCTED HER TOFILE THE COMPLAINT BEFORE THE COMMISSION AFTER THE ORDER OF THE FORUMAND AFTER HAVING PROPER LEGAL ADVICE SHE IS FILING THIS COMPLAINT WITHTHE PRAYER THAT THE DELAY IN FILING THE COMPLAINT SHOULD BE CONDONED SHECLAIMED RS 5 LACS INSURANCE AMOUNT + 18% INTEREST + RS 5,000 LITIGATIONCOST AND FOR MENTAL AND BODILY AGONY RS 10,000 SHE HAS ALSO FILED ANAPPLICATION FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING THIS COMPLAINT THECOMPLAINT HAS BEEN FILED BEFORE THE COMMISSION ON 2422001 WHILE THEDISTRICT FORUM CONSIDERING IT BEYOND JURISDICTION OF THE DISTRICT FORUMPASSED ORDER ON 2712001 HENCE THE PERIOD OF DELAY IS QUITE SMALLCONSIDERING THE CIRCUMSTANCE OF THIS CASE IN SUPPORT OF THIS CONDONATIONAPPLICATION COMPLAINANT NO 1 PREMA DEVI HAS FILED AFFIDAVIT ALSO INWHICH IT HAS BEEN MENTIONED THAT SHE IS ILLITERATE AND IGNORANT ABOUT THETECHNICALITIES OF THE LAW AND AFTER PROPER LEGAL OPINION AND AFTER THEORDER OF FORUM DATED 2712001 SHE IS FILING THE COMPLAINT ON 2422001

(2.) THE ORDER OF THE FORUM DATED 2712001 IS ON THE FILE WHICH IN BRIEFMENTIONED THE FACTS THAT THE DEATH AND ACCIDENT OF THE PERSONNEL ONELECTION DUTY WAS COVERED BY INSURANCE POLICY IN THE ORDER IT HAS BEENMENTIONED THAT AN AMENDMENT APPLICATION WAS FILED IN THE FORUM TO AMENDTHE COMPLAINT THAT SHE WAS ENTITLED TO RS 5 LACS INSURENCE MONEY AND INADDITION FOR MENTAL AND PHYSICAL AGONY FURTHER COMPENSATION ANDINTEREST, ETC HAS BEEN MENTIONED AND THIS EXCEEDS RS 5 LACS AND AT THATTIME FORUM WAS HAVING JURISDICTION ONLY TO ADJUDICATE THE COMPLAINTS OFTHE VALUE UP TO RS 5 LACS ONLY THE FORUM CONCLUDED THAT SINCE THECOMPLAINANT CLAIMING VALUATION MORE THAN FIVE LACS, IS NOT WITHIN THEJURISDICTION OF THE FORUM, HENCE IT MAY BE PRESENTED BEFORE THE STATECOMMISSION

(3.) IT will be proper to express a few lines on the point of limitation. The Insurance Company which has fought bitterly the complaint alleged that condonation of delay has not been allowed by the Forum and the delay from 27.1.2001 to 24.2.2001 i.e. the date of filing the complaint before the commission has not been properly explained. There is a fallacy in the argument of Insurance Company. The learned District Forum was not entitled to condone the delay because there was no question of condonation of delay before it. The Commission being superior authority of the Forum, they could not sit over the judgment regarding condonation of delay and it is only within the jurisdiction of the Commission to say something about condonation of delay and this is the reason the Forum advised the complainant to move to the Commission for having relief in the matter. The observation of the Forum that the complainant may present the complaint before the Commission includes the intention and opinion of the Forum that this is the matter where the condonation of delay should be granted. After the decision of the Forum on 28th day the complaint has been filed before the Commission along with application and affidavit asserting that the complainant and her father -in -law are illiterate, her issues are minor and after having proper legal opinion she is filing this complaint. A delay of 24 days for this illiterate lady will not be bar in accepting the complaint and this is the fit case where in the interest of justice the delay should be condoned and we order accordingly.