State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Lic Of India & Anr vs Smt. Rattani Devi on 17 November, 2009
H H.P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SHIMLA. FIRST APPEAL No. 123/2009. DECIDED ON 17.11.2009. In the matter of: 1. Life Insurance Corporation of India, through its Senior Divisional Manager, Bock No. 14 & 15, SDA Complex Kasumpti, Shimla 171 009; 2. The Branch Manager, LIC Branch, Raura Sector Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, Himachal Pradesh. ... ... Appellants. Versus Smt. Rattani Devi W/o Sh./ Dhani Ram R/o Village Kuthera, PO Malangan, Tehsil Jhandutta, District Bilaspur, HP. ... ... Respondent. Hon'ble Mr. Justice Arun Kumar Goel (Retd.), President Honble Mr. Chander Shekhar Sharma, Member. Whether approved for reporting? Yes. For the Appellants: Mr. Navlesh Verma, Advocate. For the Respondent: Ms. Neelam Kaplash, Advocate vice Mr. Jeet Ram Poswal, Advocate. O R D E R:
Justice Arun Kumar Goel (Retd.), President (Oral).
Only ground urged by Mr. Navlesh Verma in support of this appeal was, that the District Forum below ignored vital facts regarding date of accident, as well as the date when the premium was deposited by the deceased, and his date of death. According to him these dates were very material for determination of the Consumer Complaint No. 131/2006, decided on 26.2.2009 by the District Forum Bilaspur, Camp at Ghumarwin. He thus prayed for allowing this appeal by setting aside the impugned order while dismissing the complaint.
2. In the light of the above plea urged by Mr. Verma facts giving rise to this appeal are being briefly noted. Double Benefit Accident Policy was obtained by the deceased Ashwani Kumar son of the respondent. Its premium payable was quarterly in the sum of Rs. 836/-. Premium was payable on 28th of March, 28th of June, 28th of September and 28th of December every year. According to learned counsel for the appellant premium due on 28.12.2005 had not been paid either on the due date or within the extended period, i.e. upto 27.1.2006. Thus according to him, when the deceased met with accident on 30.1.2006 his policy was in a lapsed condition.
3. It is again not disputed on behalf of the appellants that premium was paid by the deceased during his life time after accident on 7.2.2006 alongwith interest but before his death and he died on 9.2.2006.
4. With a view to advance the case of the appellant, Mr. Verma submitted that there was no evidence to suggest that the death of the life assured, i.e. the son of the respondent, late Mr. Ashwani Kumar was attributable to the accident. This aspect was also ignored by the District Forum below, thus it fell into error by allowing the complaint and directing his clients to pay Rs. 50,000/- to the complainant with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the complaint, i.e. 30.8.2006 till realization, alongwith cost of Rs. 2,000/-. All these pleas were seriously contested by Ms. Neelam Kaplash Advocate appearing for the respondent. According to her premium was paid by the deceased during his life time alongwith interest etc. the receipt of which is not in dispute. Besides this, appellants were estopped by their acts and conduct from challenging the impugned order, after having paid the sum assured to the extent of Rs. 52,300/-.
5. In case the policy was in a lapsed condition as claimed by the appellants there was no reason, muchless ground for them to have Rs. 52,300/- to the respondent. Deceased during his life time had paid the delayed premium with interest it was only after its acceptance and treating it to be a valid payment, that the aforesaid sum was paid by the appellants to the respondent.
6. In the face of this admitted position we find no reason to hold as to why the benefit of double accident could be denied by appellants to the respondent. Reason being that either the policy was in a lapsed condition or it was in force. In case of former, no amount would have been paid by the appellant, and in case of latter situation there is no basis where under they could withhold the amount in question. District Forum below has gone into this aspect with reference to clause 10-2(b) of the terms and conditions of the policy bond.
7. We are further of the view that it is not the case of the appellants that the deceased had either mis-stated and or withheld any material fact to gain advantage. If this was the situation, no amount would have been paid to the respondent as noted hereinabove.
8. No other point is urged.
In view of the aforesaid discussion this appeal has no substance and the same is dismissed thereby upholding the order of the District Forum Bilaspur, Camp at Ghumarwin, in Consumer Complaint No. 131/2006, decided on 26.2.2009, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.
All interim orders passed from time to time in this appeal shall stand vacated forthwith.
Learned counsel for the parties have undertaken to collect copy of this order from the Court Secretary free of cost as per rules.
Shimla November 17, 2009 ( Justice Arun Kumar Goel ) (Retd.) President /Krn/ (Chander Shekhar Sharma) Member.