State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
L.I.C. Of India. vs Ms. Varsha Chauhan. & Ors. on 9 May, 2016
H.P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
SHIMLA.
First Appeal No.:51/2016
Date of Presentation:02.03.2016
Date of Decision: 09.05.2016
.....................................................................................
Life Insurance Corporation of India Ltd.,
The Mall, Shimla-1,
Through its Senior Divisional Manager.
... Appellant.
Versus
1. Varsha Chauhan,
Daughter of Shri Vishvajeet Chauhan,
2. Vaishali Chauhan,
Daughter of Shri Vishvajeet Chauhan,
(Both minors through mother Smt. Geeta Chauhan).
3. Smt. Geeta Chauhan,
Wife of Shri Vishvajeet Chauhan,
All residents of Village Shawal,
Post Office Veergarh, Tehsil Kumarsain,
District Shimla, Himachal Pradesh.
...Respondents
...........................................................................................
Coram
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Surjit Singh, President.
Hon'ble Mrs. Prem Chauhan, Member.
Hon'ble Mr. Vijay Pal Khachi, Member.
Whether approved for reporting?1
For the Appellant: Mr. Navlesh Verma, Advocate.
For the Respondents: Mr. Peeyush Verma, Advocate.
.......................................................................................
O R D E R:
Justice Surjit Singh, President (Oral) Appellant has preferred this appeal against the order dated 08.01.2016, of learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the order? Life Insurance Corporation of India Ltd. Vs. Varsha Chauhan & Ors.
(F.A. No.51/2016) Shimla, whereby a complaint, under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, filed against it by Smt. Geeta Chauhan, wife; Varsha Chauhan & Vaishali Chauhan, daughters of late Shri Vishvajeet Chauhan, has been allowed and a direction given to it to pay a sum of `4.00 lacs, with interest at the rate of 9%, per annum, on account of insurance money and also to pay `25,000/- as punitive damages and `10,000/-, as litigation cost.
2. Respondents in their complaint, under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, alleged that late Shri Vishvajeet Chauhan had purchased three policies, on his life, from the appellant. Numbers of the policies, as stated in the complainant, were 151209654, 152385779 and 152418980. According to the respondents, policies provided that in the event of death of the insured, his legal-heirs would be paid `1.00 lac, on account of basic amount, in respect of each policy and an additional amount of `1.00 lac against each policy, in case the life assured died in an accident. It was alleged that life assured died on 29.10.2004, in an accident. All the three policies were submitted to the appellant and request was made for payment of the sum assured and also the money equivalent to 2 Life Insurance Corporation of India Ltd. Vs. Varsha Chauhan & Ors.
(F.A. No.51/2016) the sum assured, on account of double accident benefit. Appellant allegedly paid the sum assured only in respect of two policies, i.e. policies No. 152385779 and 152418980. Money equal to the sum assured, on account of double accident benefit, was, however, not paid. As regards the third policy, i.e. policy No. 151209654, nothing had been paid nor was any reason assigned for non-payment of money, due against that policy. On these allegations, the respondents prayed for issuance of directions to the appellant to pay `1.00 lac, on account of basic sum assured against policy No.151209654 and double accident benefit to the tune of `1.00 lac, in respect of each of the three policies, with interest.
3. Appellant contested the complaint and pleaded that the life assured was himself driving the vehicle, in the accident of which he died and that he possessed only a learning driving licence at the time, when accident took place. He alone was present in the vehicle, in question, and no person, having a valid and effective driving licence, accompanied him. This according to the appellant violated the terms & conditions of the policy, as also the provisions of Motor Vehicles Act and hence, 3 Life Insurance Corporation of India Ltd. Vs. Varsha Chauhan & Ors.
(F.A. No.51/2016) double accident benefit was not payable. As regards policy No.151209654, appellant did not say as to why the sum assured, in respect of this policy, had not been paid.
4. Parties adduced evidence before the learned District Forum in the form of status reports of the policies and terms & conditions of the plans of the policies. Policies were, however, not produced.
5. Learned District Forum, vide impugned order, has allowed the complaint and directed the appellant to pay `1.00 lac, on account of double accident benefit in respect of policies No.152385779 and 152418980 and sum assured of `1.00 lac, in respect of third policy, i.e. policy bearing No.151209654, as also double accident benefit to the tune of `1.00 lac. The gross sum total amounting to `4.00 lacs, with interest has been directed to be paid, in addition to compensation & costs.
6. Appellant is aggrieved by the order of learned District Forum and has, therefore, preferred the present appeal.
7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record. 4 Life Insurance Corporation of India Ltd. Vs. Varsha Chauhan & Ors.
(F.A. No.51/2016)
8. We may notice at the very outset that the plea of the appellant that deceased was not accompanied by any person, holding a valid and effective driving licence to drive the vehicle, is not only not borne out from the material on record, but is rather negated by the contents of First Information Report, Annexure A-1, per which one Meena Ram was sitting in the car at the time when accident took place. It is not denied that Meena Ram possessed a valid and effective driving licence to drive the vehicle, in question.
9. On the last date, when the matter was being heard, impression was given that there were perhaps four policies, which the deceased had purchased and that against the three policies, he had insured his life and the fourth policy was for the marriage of one of the daughters of the deceased. It was pointed out that the policy for the marriage of the daughter of deceased, was the same, i.e. policy No.151209654, in respect of which nothing had been paid to the respondents and with respect to which the District Forum had directed the payment of a sum of `2.00 lacs, (included in the total amount of `4.00 lacs) with interest at the rate of 9%, per annum.
5Life Insurance Corporation of India Ltd. Vs. Varsha Chauhan & Ors.
(F.A. No.51/2016)
10. Also, it was pointed out that since the forth policy was also an endowment policy with the sum assured, being payable on the death of the life assured, basic sum assured had already been paid. We adjourned the matter and directed the counsel for the parties to produce some responsible functionary of the appellant and widow of the deceased. Today, neither any functionary of the appellant is present nor is the widow of the deceased, i.e. respondent No.3, present.
11. Learned counsel representing the respondents submits that he spoke respondent No.3 on phone and she has stated that she does not have any idea, if there was a fourth policy. Learned counsel representing the appellant has, however, submitted two papers, which are marked Ex.SC-1 and SC-2. As per these documents, the deceased had purchased another policy bearing No.152433556, in the sum of `1.00 lac, and the sum assured payable under that policy worked out at `1,02,109/-, which according to the learned counsel for the appellant had been paid in January, 2005.
12. According to the learned counsel for the appellant, money due against policy bearing 6 Life Insurance Corporation of India Ltd. Vs. Varsha Chauhan & Ors.
(F.A. No.51/2016) No.151209654, is payable only on the date of maturity of the policy and not on the date of death of the life assured, because that was a policy, purchased by the deceased for the marriage of his daughter, under Plan 90. He drew our attention to Annexure R/B, wherein the plan of this policy is written as 90. He has submitted the literature of Plan 90, Annexure R/E, which shows that the plan pertains to marriage endowment/educational annuity with profit and the sum assured, for the policy under this plan, is payable not on the death of the purchaser of policy, but on the date of maturity of the policy.
13. Now if, policy No.151209654 is under Plan 90, as is made out from the status report, Annexure R/B, then the money, due against this policy, would not be payable to the respondents before the date of maturity of the policy, which as per status report is 15th July, 2024. The money due against this policy cannot be adjudged at this stage. Though, the literature Annexure R/E, which is stated to be in respect of Plan 90, speaks of payment of double accident benefit also and the status report in respect of policy No.151209654 also gives the impression of availability of double accident benefit, 7 Life Insurance Corporation of India Ltd. Vs. Varsha Chauhan & Ors.
(F.A. No.51/2016) because of the appearance of printed letters EDBA, in the absence of the policy itself and lack of admission by the appellant that double accident benefit is available, under this policy also, we leave this aspect of the matter unsettled. Whether the double accident benefit is available under the policy or not, shall be considered by the appellant at the time of payment of the money, due against the policy, based on the terms & conditions of the policy.
14. In view of the above discussion and keeping in view the fact that there was a fourth policy on the life of the deceased, documents Exs.SC-1 and SC-2, in respect whereof have been submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant today, we partly allow the appeal and modify the order of the learned District Forum, as follows. Appellant instead of paying an amount of `4.00 lacs, with interest at the rate of 9%, per annum, as directed by the learned District Forum, shall pay only a sum of `2.00 lacs, on account of double accident benefit, in respect of policies No.152385779 and 152418980, with interest at the rate of 9%, from the date of filing of the complaint, to the date of payment of the aforesaid amount of 8 Life Insurance Corporation of India Ltd. Vs. Varsha Chauhan & Ors.
(F.A. No.51/2016) money, and shall also pay the money due in respect of policy No.152433556, including the double accident benefit, if permissible, as per terms & conditions of the policy, less the amount of money, if any, already paid and this amount shall also be payable together with interest at the rate of 9%, per annum, from the date of filing of complaint, i.e. 22.02.2010, to the date of its payment. In addition, the appellant shall pay the compensation and litigation expenses, as awarded by the learned District Forum.
15. A copy of this order be sent to each of the parties, free of cost, as per Rules.
(Justice Surjit Singh) President (Prem Chauhan) Member (Vijay Pal Khachi) Member May 09, 2016.
GAURAV) 9