State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Roop Kala vs Sri Ram General Insurance on 18 November, 2024
Cause Title/Judgement-Entry STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, UP C-1 Vikrant Khand 1 (Near Shaheed Path), Gomti Nagar Lucknow-226010 First Appeal No. A/2014/16 ( Date of Filing : 06 Jan 2014 ) (Arisen out of Order Dated 26/11/2013 in Case No. Complaint Case No. C/2010/49 of District Hathras) 1. Roop Kala a ...........Appellant(s) Versus 1. Sri Ram General Insurance a ...........Respondent(s) BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. Vikas Saxena PRESIDING MEMBER HON'BLE MRS. SUDHA UPADHYAY MEMBER PRESENT: Dated : 18 Nov 2024 Final Order / Judgement Reserved State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission U.P. Lucknow. Appeal No.16 of 2014 1- Smt. Roopkala @ Roopo aged 42 years, W/o late Bhagwan Singh. 2- Km. Pooja aged about 16 years D/o Late Bhagwan Singh. 3- Mukesh aged about 15 years S/o Late Bhagwan Singh. 4- Dinesh aged about 12 years S/o Late Bhagwan Singh. 5- Km. Sonia aged about 10 years D/o Late Bhagwan Singh. No.2-4 minors through his/her mother & GAL Smt. Roopkala All R/o Village & Post, Jhudawai, Distt. Mathura. ...Appellants. Versus 1- Shriram General Insurance Co. Ltd. through General Manager, Corporate, E-8, EPIP, RIICO Sitapur, Jaipur (Raj.) 2- Branch Manager, Shriram General Insurance Co. Ltd., Branch Office, Sanjay Palace, Agra (U.P.) 3- Srinath Pandey, Local Agent of Shriram General Insurance Co. Ltd., Office, Bangla Marg, Infront of Komal Complex, Ramleela Ground, Hathras. ...Respondents. Present:- 1- Hon'ble Sri Vikas Saxena, Presiding Member. 2- Hon'ble Smt. Sudhay Upadhyay, Member. Sri O.P. Duvel, Advocate for the appellants. Sri Dinesh Kumar, Advocate for the respondents. Date 26.11.2024 JUDGMENT
Per Mr. Vikas Saxena, Member: This appeal has been filed against the judgment and order dated 26.11.2013 passed by the ld. District Consumer Commission, Hathras in complaint case no.49 of 2010, Smt. Roopkala vs. Shriram General Insurance Co. Ltd. & ors.
The brief facts of the case are that the husband of the respondent no.1 deceased Bhagwan Singh has taken a policy of Rs.2 lacs and deposited premium of Rs.440.00. On 28.8.2009 he got the policy insurance after depositing Rs.1100.00 as premium and the insured amount was Rs.7 lacs. The deceased Bhagwan Singh died on 18/19.9.2009 after falling from the roof, information of which was given to the police and a claim was preferred before the insurance company but the insurance company did not honour the claim. Therefore, the present complaint was filed.
The opposite parties have filed written statement wherein it is stated that the complaint has been filed within giving any insurance claim number and cover note. There is no description as to on what basis the insurance amount was claimed.
After hearing the both the parties the ld. District Consumer dismissed the complaint.
Being aggrieved with the impugned judgment and order the appellants/complainants have filed the instant appeal on the ground that the ld. District Consumer Commission erred in not placing the reliance upon the evidence on record and erred in holding that the appellants have failed to prove their case. The deceased Bhagwan Singh died on 18/19.9.2009 due to fall from the roof and he was duly covered by the PA policy on the date of accident. Therefore, it is humbly prayed that the impugned judgment and order be set aside and the appeal be allowed.
It is argued by the ld. counsel for the appellant that the finding of the ld. District Commission that the amount of Rs.1540.00 given by the deceased would have remained with the opposite party/Respondent no. 3 (agent) is erroneous and is against the evidence on record. Firstly because the receipt of deposit with the HDFC Bank in the account no. 01211050106965 in the name of Hemant Sharma, officer of the opposite party no.1 & 2 was filed by the complainant before the ld. District Commission and secondly, the complainant's application dated 08.05.2012 requesting the ld. District Commission to obtained the account details of HDFC account no. 01211050106965 in the name of Hemant Sharma, officer of opposite party no. 1 & 2, was not disposed of by the ld. District Commission. The Respondent no.3 has mentioned in reply dated 19.07.2010 to the notice dated. 08.08.2009 of the complainant that he had received the Rs.440.00 on 28.07.2009 for Personal Accident cover for Rs.2,00,000.00 of Late Bhagwan Singh and Rs.1100.00 on 28.08.2009 enhancing the PA cover of late Bhagwan Singh by Rs.5,00,000.00. Thus, PA cover for late Bhagwan Singh was of Rs.7,00,000.00.
We have heard ld. counsel for the parties and perused the impugned judgment and order.
The main point of the controversy between the parties is regarding the existence of a policy for life cover of the deceased husband of the complainant. The respondent insurance company has claimed that the complainant did not tell which insurance policy has her husband was taken and under which she has claimed the insured amount.
On the other hand, the complainant contended that she is an illiterate lady and as the agent of the opposite party did not provide any copy of the policy or cover note of the insurance policy covering the life of her husband, she could not know the details of the policy and she is unable to provide details of the same. However, to obtain the details of the policy she submitted an application dated 8.5.2012 before the ld. District Commission that her husband deposited premium of the said insurance policy in the account no.01211050106965 with HDFC Bank, Hathras Branch. In the application she has made a prayer to the Ld. District Commission to summon the details and number of the policy from the bank which her husband with the help of one Officer of the insurance company named Mr. Hemant Sharma deposited the premium, if the details are available at HDFC Bank. In the application she has also mentioned that her husband has deposited the premium on 28.8.2009 in the aforesaid account at HDFC Bank.
In view of the aforesaid contention of the complainant and considering the fact that by summoning such details an illiterate person may be able to pursue her case. It seems justified that the ld. District Commission should summon such details from the HDFC Bank and if the details are available with the HDFC Bank, the ld. District Commission should decide the case in the light of such details. The appeal is liable to be allowed.
ORDER The appeal is allowed. The judgment and order dated 26.11.2013 passed by the ld. District Consumer Commission, Hathras in complaint case no.49 of 2010 is set aside. The case is remanded back to the ld. District Consumer Commission concerned with the direction to restore the complaint to its original number decide afresh after summoning the details as per the application dated 8.5.2012 of the complainant in accordance with law after affording proper opportunity of hearing to both the parties.
The stenographer is requested to upload this order on the Website of this Commission today itself.
Certified copy of this judgment be provided to the parties as per rules.
(Vikas Saxena) (Sudha Upadhyay) Presiding Member Member Jafri, PA I C-3 [HON'BLE MR. Vikas Saxena] PRESIDING MEMBER [HON'BLE MRS. SUDHA UPADHYAY] MEMBER