National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Life Insurance Corporation Of India vs Neeta Dinesh Rajurkar & Anr. on 8 March, 2021
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI REVISION PETITION NO. 693 OF 2020 (Against the Order dated 03/12/2019 in Appeal No. 132/2018 of the State Commission Maharashtra) 1. LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA THROUGH BRANCH MANAGER, WANI BRACH, PAMATTIWAR PREMISES NEAR SAI BABA MANDIR, WANI, DISTRICT-YAVATMAL MAHARASHTRA ...........Petitioner(s) Versus 1. NEETA DINESH RAJURKAR & ANR. W/O. LATE DINESH HARIBHAU RAJURKAR, R/O. BEHIND NARAYAN NIWAS, JATRA ROAD, WANI TQ. WANI, DISTRICT-YAVATMAL MAHARASHTRA 2. HARIBHAU GOVINDRAO RAJURKAR R/O. BEHIND NARAYAN NIWAS, JATRA ROAD, WANI TQ. WANI, DISTRICT-YAVATMAL MAHARASHTRA ...........Respondent(s)
BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. DINESH SINGH,PRESIDING MEMBER
For the Petitioner : Mr. Santosh Kumar, Advocate For the Respondent :
Dated : 08 Mar 2021 ORDER
ORDER
Taken up through video conferencing.
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner at admission.
Perused the material on record.
2. In the interest of justice, to provide fair opportunity to the petitioner insurance co., to settle the matter on merit, the delay in filing the petition is condoned.
3. The matter relates to repudiation of part of insurance claim on the death of the insured, late Sh. Dinesh Haribhau Rajurkar, who was the husband of the complainant no. 1 and the son of the complainant no. 2.
4. The insured met with an accident on 22.05.2013 and succumbed to his injuries on 28.05.2013. Part of the claim was repudiated vide letter dated 20.02.2014. The complainants went before the District Forum on 01.04.2015. The District Forum made its Order dated 25.06.2018, it was made on contest. The Forum arrived at findings of deficiency in service by the insurance co. and directed it to pay a sum of Rs. 2,25,000/- with simple interest @8% p.a. from the date of repudiation of the part of the claim i.e. from 20.02.2014. It also directed the insurance company to pay Rs. 10,000/- as compensation and Rs. 5,000/- as cost of litigation.
5. The insurance co. preferred appeal before the State Commission.
6. The impugned Order of the State Commission dated 03.12.2019 reads as below:
Dated : 03 Dec 2019 ORDER Appellant and advocate absent. Record shows that the appellant has not deposited the cost of Rs.1000/- which was imposed at the time of deciding the application for condonation of delay. Sufficient time was also granted for depositing the cost. No further time can be granted for depositing the cost. Application for condonation of delay is dismissed for non payment of cost. Accordingly appeal is disposed off.
7. It was the insurance co.'s appeal, the insurance co. was required to pursue its appeal professionally, without causing delay or impediments.
Neither the appellant insurance co., nor its counsel, were present before the State Commission on the date it passed its impugned Order (the appeal could as well have been dismissed in default for non-prosecution).
However, the appellant insurance co. had not deposited the cost of Rs. 1000/- imposed for condoning the delay in filing the appeal, despite sufficient opportunity. Observing that no further time was warranted for depositing the cost, the application for condonation of delay was dismissed. Consequently, the appeal stood dismissed on limitation.
8. If delay in filing the appeal is condoned subject to reasonable cost of Rs. 1,000/-, if the cost is not paid despite sufficient opportunity, if the appellant insurance co. or its learned counsel is not present before the State Commission on the date it makes its impugned Order, it cannot be said that the State Commission has in any manner faulted in dismissing the appeal on limitation. No jurisdictional error, or miscarriage of justice, is visible.
9. The Statement of Objects and Reasons of the Act 1986 says of "speedy and simple redressal to consumer disputes". The death of the insured took place in 2013. The claim was repudiated in 2014. The complainant went before the District Forum in 2015. The District Forum made its award in 2018. The insurance co. went before the State Commission in 2018. The State Commission dismissed its appeal in 2019. The insurance co. has come before this Commission in 2020. We are now in 2021.
10. There is no justification or reason, on fact or law, to interfere with the impugned Order of the State Commission.
11. The revision petition, being ill-conceived and bereft of merit, is dismissed.
12. It will be open to the petitioner insurance co. to recover any pecuniary loss caused to the insurance co. in the matter from the functionaries responsible for the (mis)conduct of its case before the State Commission.
13. The insurance co. through its chief executive is directed to make good the award made by the District Forum vide its Order dated 25.06.2018 within four weeks from today, failing which the District Forum shall undertake execution as per the law.
14. The Registry is requested to send a copy each of this Order to the petitioner insurance co., its chief executive and its learned counsel, and to the respondents complainants, as well as to the District Forum, within three days from today. The stenographer is requested to upload this Order on the website of this Commission today itself.
...................... DINESH SINGH PRESIDING MEMBER