State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Lic Of India vs Hardayal Singh on 25 August, 2009
H H.P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION AT SHIMLA. First Appeal No.364/2008 Decided on 25.8.2009. In the matter of: The Life Insurance Corporation of India, through its Divisional Manager, L.I.C. Shimla. Appellant. Versus Sh. Hardayal Singh Dhanta son of Sh. Inder Singh Dhanta, R/O VPO Dhar, Tehsil Jubbal, District Shimla, H.P. Respondent. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Honble Mr. Justice Arun Kumar Goel (Retd.), President. Honble Mr. Chander Shekhar Sharma, Member. Whether approved for reporting? No For the Appellant: Mr. Navlesh Verma, Advocate. For the Respondent: Mr. Peeyush Verma, Advocate. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ O R D E R:
Justice Arun Kumar Goel (Retd.), President (Oral).
1. Appellant has filed this appeal challenging the order of the District Forum, Shimla, in Complaint No.303/2007. Vide said order dated 25.8.2008 while allowing the complaint of the respondent, appellant has been directed to indemnify the respondent in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the complaint i.e. 11.9.2007 till full payment was made. In addition to this, Rs.2,000/ has also been allowed in favour of the respondent as cost of litigation. Appellant has been directed to comply with the said order within 45 days of the receipt of certified copy.
2. Mr. Verma, learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that his client was not properly served. As such ex-parte proceedings ordered against it on 19.11.2007 and all subsequent orders including final order are liable to set aside. In addition to this, he also pointed out that his client, after arguments were concluded moved an application under Order 9 Rule 7 of the Code of Civil Procedure, for setting aside the said order dated 19.11.2007 and all consequential orders. This application is at page 31 of the complaint file and was dismissed on 25.8.2008. In the context of this application it may be appropriate to mention here that final arguments were heard on 29.7.2008 and the case was ordered to be listed on 25.8.2008 when impugned order was passed, and at the same time vide order of the date, this application was also dismissed as having become infructuous. In the face of this factual position, submission of Mr. Verma learned Counsel for the appellant that his client was wrongly proceeded against ex-parte on 19.11.2007 and/or its having not been properly served, is without any merit, hence rejected.
3. In the context of this application we are of the view, that it was rightly rejected and no exception can be taken to it. Because as per averments made in the application, papers were tagged by Dalip K.Thapa, A.O. by mistake with another policy file having similar policy number/digits. This resulted in summons having gone missing.
It was on 12.8.2008, when the said file was opened for some office queries, the summon was noticed. If this was factually correct, appellant ought to have swiftly moved.
From the application moved for the file inspection it is evident that the same was filed on 20.8.2009 and it was inspected on the same date. This application is at page 45 of the complaint file. What happened from 12.8.2008 till the date of filing of the application, there is no material on record. That shows the seriousness with which the matter was being dealt with by the appellant.
4. Before proceeding further, it may be mentioned here that the policy in question was admittedly a double accident benefit policy. Sum insured under it has been paid by the appellant to the respondent.
5. In this background, learned Counsel for the appellant urged that there is no evidence of accident in this case, therefore District Forum fell into error in passing the impugned order in the absence of there being any material having been placed on record to support this plea. This is an argument in vacuum. Mr. Navlesh Verma wanted us to place reliance on a copy of the report of the State Forensic Science Laboratory, Annexure R.4, as also the letter dated 15.9.2006 addressed by the Incharge, Police Station, Jubbal to Shri Diwan Dhanta. Since we have taken the view that the appellant was duly served in the complaint and thereafter it chose to remain absent, application was also belatedly filed without any case having been made out for entertaining the same. Therefore, we do not propose to look into the documents attached with the appeal particularly, Annexures R.2 and R.4. F.I.R. No.40/60 under Section 302, 34 I.P.C. was registered at Police Station, Jubbal on 24.5.2006. This clearly shows that the deceased insured was murdered which according to us is covered under the term accident as envisaged under the Double Accident Benefit Policy. Reason being that it is not the case of the appellant that the deceased had either committed suicide or died otherwise. At this stage, Mr. Verma, again by referring to Annexure R.4 with the appeal tried to argue that deceased was under the influence of alcohol. Amount of alcohol found in his blood was 347.4 mg %, therefore death of the deceased was due to excessive consumption of alcohol, thus cannot be termed to be accidental. This again is an argument in the vacuum because there is no such material placed by the appellant on the file of the District Forum below so as to uphold this plea. In fact this is a case of no evidence much less pleadings having been placed on the complaint file by the appellant. With a view to accept his this appeal, Mr. Verma referred to a number of decisions of the National Commission. Question of referring to those would have arisen only when his client had placed any material or there was any pleadings to that effect before the District Forum below. Law has to be applied to the pleadings and evidence. That being the position, we are of the opinion that this appeal has no substance and the order under challenge passed by the District Forum below deserves to be upheld.
Ordered accordingly.
6. No other point was urged.
In view of the aforesaid discussion, this appeal is dismissed being without merit thereby upholding the order of the District Forum below passed in Complaint No.303/2007, dated 25.08.2008.
All interim orders passed from time to time shall stand vacated forthwith.
Learned Counsel for the parties have undertaken to collect copy of this order free of cost from the Court Secretary as per rules.
Shimla, August 25, 2009.
( Justice Arun Kumar Goel ) (Retd.) President /BS/ (Chander Shekhar Sharma) Member