State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Lic vs Lalit Mohan on 1 September, 2009
BEFORE
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CIRCUIT BENCH,
RAJASTHAN, JAIPUR
Appeal
No. 2082/2008
of India, through its Manager
(LHPF), Divisional Office: 'Jeevan Prakash', Bhawani Singh Road,
Jaipur.
..Appellant-Non-Complainants 1&2
`
VS
Lalit
Mohan Upadhyaya S/o Shri Radhy Shyam Upadhyaya, C/o Upadhyaya
Electronics, High School Road, Bandikui, District Dausa.
..Respondent-Complainant
Before:
Mr.
G.S. Hora, Presiding Member
Mr. Sikandar Punjabi, Member Present:
Mr.Vizzy Agarwal, counsel for the Appellant Mr. Jintendra Mitruka, counsel for the Respondent ORDER Dated: 01.09.2009 PER Mr, G.S. HORA, PRESIDING MEMBER This appeal is against the order dated 17.10.2008 passed by the learned District Forum, Dausa whereby the complaint was allowed directing the Appellant to pay to the Complainant within a period of two months a sum of Rs. 25,000/- along with interest 9 per annum from 16.1.2008 till the date of payment besides Rs. 1,000/- as cost of litigation.
The Complainant Lalit Mohan Upadhyaya and his wife Smt. Suman Lata Upadhyaya who were married on 22.6.1997 submitted proposal dated 28.7.2001 for obtaining Jeevan Sathi Policy under Plan 89 for a sum assured of Rs. 25,000/-. The policy was issued on 21.8.2001. Smt. Upadhyaya died on 1.5.2004 due to burn injuries. Consequently, death claim under the policy was filed but the same was repudiated by the Appellant on the ground of applicability of clause 4B of the policy.
However, the Complainant was paid Rs. 3,708/-. Feeling aggrieved, the Complainant filed the complaint before the learned District Forum which was decided on 4.7.2007 wherein it was held that the deceased was a professional and therefore clause 4B was not applicable in the case of the deceased. As per the directions, the Complainant re-submitted the claim with the Appellant 2 Corporation.
The Corporation thereafter paid the basic sum assured of Rs. 25,000/- but bonus and death accident benefit was not given to him. The Complainant had to file the complaint in the learned District Forum claiming the said benefits. Vide impugned order, it was held that bonus was not payable but the Complainant was found entitled to death accident benefit claim and consequently the order as indicated above was passed.
After the earlier judgement dated 4.7.2007 this issue no more survived whether clause 4B was applicable or not. After payment of basic sum assured, it should be accepted that clause 4B was not applicable in this case. The sole question for consideration is whether death accident benefit could be given to the Complainant. There is nothing on record to show that the deceased committed suicide. A case was registered against the Complainant and his Mother u/s 498A and 304B of IPC but both of them were acquitted of the charge u/s 304B after giving the benefit of doubt but they were held guilty u/s 498A for which they were given three years simple imprisonment and Rs. 1,000/- fine was also imposed. Except that the Complainant and his Mother have been convicted under 498A, it does not lead us to this conclusion that it was a case of suicide. In absence of direct evidence about the suicide or murder, the only conclusion to be drawn is that it was a case of an accident. Admittedly Smt. Upadhyaya died due to burn injuries which she sustained on 29.4.2004 due to flaring of stove. FIR was also lodged by the Father of the deceased alleging that his daughter had been burnt to death by the Complainant and his relatives. As has been said earlier that simply because the Complainant has been convicted u/s 498A the conclusion cannot be that the deceased committed suicide. The learned District Forum has passed a detailed order for coming to this conclusion that it was a case of accidental death. Having gone through the judgement, we find that the same does not suffer from any error and therefore the findings deserve to be upheld.
The learned counsel for the Appellant submitted that the Complainant was paid a sum of Rs. 3,708/- vide letter dated 20.4.2006 but that amount has not been allowed to be deducted from the sum payable vide impugned order. We may make it clear that the above amount, the Corporation is entitled to deduct from the award.
Consequently, the appeal is allowed to this extent and the appeal stands disposed of as per the above observations.
Member Presiding Member