State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Aviva Life Insurance Company vs Veena Rani D/O. Late Bhushan Lal on 18 November, 2010
F.A. No. 439 of 2010 1
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PUNJAB,
S.C.O. NO.3009-10, SECTOR 22-D, CHANDIGARH.
First Appeal No. 439 of 2010
Date of institution : 17.3.2010
Date of decision : 18.11.2010
1. AVIVA LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY INDIA LIMITED, Aviva tower, Sector Road,
Opp Golf Course, DLG Phase V, Sector 43, Gurgaon, through its MD/Chairman.
2. AVIVA LIFE INSURANCE CO LIMITED, 2nd Floor Parkash Deep Building, 7 tolstoy
Mrg, New Delhi, through its Chairman.
Appellants
Versus
1. Veena Rani D/o. Late Bhushan Lal, W/o Vinod Kumar, C/o Jatindfer Commission
Agent, Shop No. 175, Near grain Market Sunam, District Sangrur.
2. Parmod Kumar agent/, Avivia Life Insurance, SCF 8, Nagar, New SSt, Narayan
Hospital, Rajpura Road, Patiala.
.........Respondents
First Appeal against the order dated 2.2.2010 of
the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum,
Sangrur.
Before:-
Hon'ble Mr.Justice S.N.Aggarwal, President.
Mrs. Amarpreet Sharma, Member
Sh. Baldev Singh Sekhon, Member Present:-
For the appellant : Sh. Sandeep Suri, Advocate For the respondent : Sh. Sudarshan Moudgil, Advocate JUSTICE S.N. AGGARWAL, PRESIDENT:-
Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that Veena Rani respondent had filed a complaint against the appellants and respondent No. 2 in the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum Sangrur ( in short "District Forum"). The appellants were served but they could not file the written statement. The defence was struck off on 7.1.2010 and the case was adjourned to 14.1.2010 for evidence of the complainant.
The appellants filed an application for permitting them to file the written statement and for quashing of order of striking off the defence of the appellants. This F.A. No. 439 of 2010 2 application was dismissed by the learned District Forum vide order dated 21.1.2010. The final order was passed on 2.2.2010 by allowing the complaint.
Hence the appeal.
We asked learned counsel for the appellants to produce before us their written version so that we may decide the appeal on merits.
Learned counsel for the appellant pointed out that while filling the proposal form Bhushan Lal had shown his age as 55 years and he had attached a copy of the Ration Card in support of his age as proof. However, in the Ration Card Krishna Devi was shown as wife of Bhushan Lal insured. There is no reference to any son or any daughter of Bhushan Lal. Learned counsel for the appellants also placed on file the identity card of Lajpat Rai and Davinder Kumar issued by the Election Commission. They claimed themselves to be the sons of Bhushan Lal. They have also furnished the affidavit that they were the sons of Bhushan Lal. If the dates of birth of Lajpat Rai and Davinder Kumar as given in the identity Card issued by the Election Commission of India is analysed then the age of Bhushan Lal was only 3-4 years when his sons were born. It was not possible.
Further submits that in the complaint filed by Veen Rani, she has not given any reference to Krishna Devi wife of Bhushan Lal or to Lajpat Rai or Davinder Kumar, sons of Bhushan Lal and claims that she was named as nominee in the proposal form. Therefore all these discrepancies need some kind of evidence to reach the correct conclusion as to whether the age of Bhushan Lal was correctly given in the proposal form and who were the legal heirs of Bhushan Lal and who were necessary parties in the complaint case.
Therefore, this appeal is accepted on payment of cost of Rs. 10,000/-. The impugned judgment dated 2.2.2010 is set-aside and the matter is remanded to the learned District Forum for permitting the appellants to file written statements. Thereafter complainant/respondent would also entitled to produce documents/affidavit to explain these discrepancies while the appellants would also granted an opportunity to produce some documents/affidavits. Parties are directed to appear before the District Forum on 14.12.2010.
F.A. No. 439 of 2010 3
Costs be paid to Sh. Sudarshan Moudgil, Advocate, counsel for the respondent/complainant for onwards transmission to the respondent/complainant.
(JUSTICE S.N. AGGARWAL) PRESIDENT November 18, 2010.
Rupinder (MRS. AMARPREET SHARMA) MEMBER (BALDEV SINGH SEKHON) MEMBER F.A. No. 439 of 2010 4 One almirah is required to keep the official files. The same may kindly be supplied to me so that files may be kept properly.
Davinder Thakur Sr. Assistant F.A. No. 439 of 2010 5 The C.P.F. Forms are being supplied to all the C.P.F. account holders. The same may kindly be filled and submitted within two days.
1. Rupinder Kaur
2. Gurmeet Singh
3. Kalyan Kaur
4. Vijay
5. Lata
6. Yad Bahadur
7. Ramesh Gawyali
8. Sandeep Singh
9. Tara Dutt Joshi
10. Puran Chand
11. Mani Ram
12. Naresh