Heard learned counsel for the appellant.

2.                    Learned counsel for the respondent is present on V.C.             

3.              This appeal is  filed  U/S-15 of erstwhile  Consumer Protection Act,1986(herein-after called the Act). Hereinafter, the parties to this appeal shall be referred to  with reference to their respective status before the learned District Forum.

4.                      The case of the complainant, in nutshell is that the husband of the complainant insured his life with OP while he was working under the GPA Scheme started by SICAL Logistic Ltd.,Chennai. During pendency of the policy the husband of the complainant died due to accident.  Thereafter the claim was filed but the OP did not settle the claim on the ground that the documents have not been filed by the complainant before them. Challenging said in action of OP, the present case is filed.

5.                  Per contra, the OP submitted that they have issued GPA in favour of SICAL Logistic Ltd. whereunder 100 persons like husband and complainant have been registered. It is further  averred that the complainant died on 26/27.01.2015 and the case  has been filed. It is also averred in the written version that the deceased has taken alcohol at the time of accident. Therefore, they rightly rejected  the case  and refused to  settled the matter.

6.                   After hearing both the parties, learned District Forum passed the following order:-

                  “   The OP is hereby directed to pay a sum of Rs.10,00,000/-(Rupees ten lakhs)only towards insurance claim amount and also pay a sum of Rs.4,000/- (Rupees four thousand)only towards mental agony, harassment and litigation costs dividing equal shares among the complainant and other 03(three) nos. of legal heirs( who entered as interveners) within 30(thirty) days from the date of receipt of this order, failing which OP shall be liable for interest @ 10% on above mentioned awarded amounts till its realization. “

7.             Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that unless documents have been  filed it is not  appropriate to atleast take a view on the policy. This aspect has not been dealt by the learned District Forum properly. Learned District Forum ought to have dismissed the complaint case as  the complainant has failed to produce all such documents.

8.               It is admitted fact that the deceased husband of the complainant died in accident and he was beneficiary of the GPS ( group personal accident claim) under the OP-Insurance Company. It is not in dispute that sum assured was Rs.10,00,000/-. It is admitted fact that the  OP has not settled the claim so far.

9.              After the claim is filed, the OP if at all went on directing for filing documents without any reasons same is a deficiency of service. When there is already police case started in the case, and police report is available, the OP could have settled, the claim either rejecting or allowing but sitting over the case which had  occurred in this case. Therefore, there is deficiency of service on the part of the appellant. However, the impugned order requires modification by directing the OP to settle the claim on the documents filed by the complainant or more documents to be  filed documents, within  45 days from today and OP would  consider same favourably and pass speaking award within said period.  Rest part of the impugned order remained unaltered.

         Therefore, the appeal is disposed of accordingly. No cost.  

       Free copy of the order be supplied to the respective parties or they may download same from the confonet  or webtsite of this  Commission to treat same as copy of order received from this Commission.    

           DFR be sent back forthwith.