State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Nic vs Lakshmi Devi on 2 July, 2010
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PUNJAB,
SCO NOS.3009-12, SECTOR 22-D, CHANDIGARH.
Misc. Application No.1597 of 2010
In/and
First Appeal No.1060 of 2010
Date of institution: 17.06.2010
Date of decision : 02.07.2010
National Insurance Company Ltd., Branch Road, Abohar through its Branch
Manager. Through its authorized/duly constituted person, office of National
Insurance Company Ltd., CH-RO1, SCO No.332-334, Sector 34-A, Chandigarh.
.....Appellants
Versus
Lakshmi Devi (aged 28 years) widow of Dinesh Kumar son of Bal Ram resident
of Dhani Mandla, Post Office Kandhwala Amarkot, Tehsil Abohar, District
Ferozepur.
.....Respondent
First Appeal against the order dated 5.4.2010
passed by the District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Ferozepur.
Before:-
Hon'ble Mr.Justice S.N.Aggarwal, President
Mrs.Amarpreet Sharma, Member
Present:-
For the appellant : Sh.Rajesh Verma, Advocate JUSTICE S.N.AGGARWAL, PRESIDENT M.A. for condonation of delay This appeal has been filed with delay. An application for condonation of delay has been filed in which the reasons have been given which caused the delay in filing the appeal. The application is supported by an affidavit. We have condoned the delay without issuing notice to the other party for the view we are taking in the main case Main case
2. Dinesh Kumar husband of Lakshmi Devi respondent had purchased a Hero Honda Motor Cycle from Hero Honda Motors Limited (respondent No.1 in First Appeal No.1060 of 2010 2 the original complaint but not impleaded in the appeal) on 1.3.2008. The purchaser of the motor cycle was also covered under the accidental insurance policy for a sum of Rs.1 lakh with the appellants.
3. It was further pleaded that unfortunately, Dinesh Kumar met with an accident on 7.8.2008 at about 11.30 p.m. in which he died when he was travelling in the jeep bearing registration No.RJ07-C-3185. An FIR No.100 dated 8.8.2008 under Sections 279, 337, 304A IPC was registered in the police station concerned. However, the dead body of Dinesh Kumar was not got subjected to post mortem examination.
4. It was further pleaded that the respondent filed the insurance claim with the appellants but it was repudiated. Hence, the complaint by the respondent against the appellants.
5. The appellants filed the written reply and pleaded that since the post mortem report of Dinesh Kumar was not produced, therefore, the cause of death has not been identified and the appellants were not liable. Hence, dismissal of the complaint was prayed.
6. Parties produced the affidavits/documents in the District Forum.
7. The learned District Forum accepted the complaint with costs of Rs.2000/- vide impugned order dated 5.4.2010 and also directed the appellants to pay the insured amount of Rs.1 lakh with 6 % per annum interest. The respondent was also awarded compensation amount of Rs.10,000/- for mental agony, pain and harassment.
8. Hence, this appeal.
9. The submission of the learned counsel for the appellants was that the post mortem report of Dinesh Kumar has not been produced. Therefore, the respondent was not entitled to any insurance claim. Hence, it was prayed that the appeal be accepted and the impugned judgment dated 5.4.2010 be set aside.
10. Considered.
First Appeal No.1060 of 2010 3
11. It is not denied by the appellants that they had issued the insurance policy in favour of Dinesh Kumar against the accidental death for a sum of Rs.1 lakh for the period from 1.3.2008 to 28.2.2009. It is also not denied that Dinesh Kumar had met with an accident on 7.8.2008 at about 11.30 p.m. when he was travelling in the jeep.
12. The respondent has produced a copy of the FIR No.100 dated 8.8.2008 registered under Sections 279, 337, 304A IPC in the police station concerned. A copy of the police certificate and death certificate of Dinesh Kumar were produced which clearly reveals that Dinesh Kumar has died in an accident. Even if the post mortem report has not been produced, the respondent has clearly proved that Dinesh Kumar has died in an accident. Therefore, the respondent was entitled to the insurance claim. There is no irregularity in the impugned judgment dated 5.4.2010.
13. There is no merit in the present appeal and the same is dismissed.
14. The appellants had deposited an amount of Rs.25,000/- with this Commission at the time of filing of the appeal. This amount of Rs.25,000/- with interest accrued thereon, if any, be remitted by the registry to the respondent by way of a crossed cheque/demand draft after the expiry of 45 days under intimation to the learned District Forum and to the appellants.
15. The interest on the amount of Rs.25,000/- shall stop running with effect from the date the appellants had deposited the same in this Commission. Interest on this amount of Rs.25,000/- shall be what has accrued on this amount when it remained deposited by this Commission in the Bank.
16. Remaining amount shall be paid by the appellants to the respondent immediately.
(JUSTICE S.N.AGGARWAL) PRESIDENT (MRS.AMARPREET SHARMA) MEMBER July 2, 2010.
Paritosh