State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Sh. Bhagyan Das vs State Bank Of India on 29 May, 2009
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION UTTARAKHAND STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION UTTARAKHAND DEHRA DUN FIRST APPEAL NO. 03 / 2008 Sh. Bhagyan Das S/o Sh. Ganga Das R/o Village Upradi, P.O. Barkot Tehsil Barkot, District Uttarkashi ......Appellant / Complainant Versus 1. State Bank of India Branch Barkot, District Uttarkashi through Branch Manager 2. National Insurance Company Limited 29, Rajpur Road, Dehradun through Senior Divisional Manager 3. Block Development Officer, Naugaon District Uttarkashi 4. Life Insurance Corporation of India "Jeevan Prakash" Regional Office Haridwar Road, Dehradun through Senior Manager (Group Insurance) .....Respondents / Opposite Parties Sh. William Akbar Chand, Learned Counsel for the Appellant Sh. S. Parashar, Learned Counsel for Respondent No. 1 Sh. Sudhanshu Dwivedi, Learned Counsel for Respondent No. 2 None for Respondent No. 3 Sh. T.S. Bindra, Learned Counsel for Respondent No. 4 Coram: Hon'ble Justice Irshad Hussain, President Smt. Kusum Lata Sharma, Member Dated: 29/05/2009 ORDER
(Per:
Justice Irshad Hussain, President):
This is complainant's appeal against the dismissal of his consumer complaint No. 127 / 2006 per order dated 17.11.2007 passed by the District Forum, Uttarkashi. The claim preferred, was not found tenable, on the ground that the death case of Smt. Upendari Devi, the wife of the complainant was not covered under Janta Personal Accident Policy extended to loanees under the Integrated Rural Development Programme (IRDP) and under which, the loanees got a Janta Personal Accident Policy for sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- on account of purchase of domestic animals (she-buffalo) by the loan advanced by the bank under the said scheme. The complainant had alleged in the complaint that his wife has met with an accidental death, which was not accepted and the claim was repudiated and the District Forum found that no deficiency in service has been made by the opposite parties - respondents in repudiating the claim and, thus, dismissed the complaint by the impugned order.
2. Having considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties in the light of the facts and the legal aspects of the case, it need to be stated at the outset that the appeal is devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed. The reason being that in the claim form (Paper No. 36) submitted by the complainant, it has specifically been mentioned that the death of complainant's wife Smt. Upendari Devi suddenly occurred due to some disease. Certificate (Paper No.
35) of the Pradhan of the Gram Panchayat concerned, also affirm that the wife of the complainant suddenly died on 07.06.2003 in her residential house in Village Upradi, Tehsil Barkot, District Uttarkashi. There can be no gain saying that the death of the wife of the complainant was for some natural cause / ailment and it was not at all accidental. In the case of Shakuntala; IV (2006) ACC 769 (SC) = 2007 ACJ 1 (SC), the Hon'ble Apex Court considered the meaning of 'accident' and laid down that "the expression 'accident' means an untoward mishap, which is not expected or designed. 'Injury' means physiological injury. In Fenton V.J. Thorley Company Limited; 1903 AC 443, it was observed that the expression 'accident' is used in popular and ordinary sense of the word as denoting an unlooked for mishap or an untoward event, which is not expected or designed." Applying the said mandate of law to the facts of the case, the answer is in the affirmative to the stand taken by the insurer and accepted by the District Forum, while dismissing the complaint by the impugned order. In other words, the death of wife of the complainant, not being accidental, the claim was not tenable.
3. In view of above, the appeal fails and is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs.
(SMT.
KUSUM LATA SHARMA) (JUSTICE IRSHAD HUSSAIN) K