Rajasthan

StateCommission

A/1142/2015

Shriram Life Insurance Co. Ltd. - Complainant(s)

Versus

Durga Prasad S/o Ram Kumar - Opp.Party(s)

Mahesh Kumar Lugadia

16 Feb 2016

ORDER

BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,RAJASTHAN,JAIPUR BENCH NO.1

 

 

FIRST APPEAL NO: 1142/2015

 

Shriram Life Insurance Company Ltd. regd.office Plot No. 31 & 32 5^th floor,Ramky Selenium,Beside Andra Bank Training Centre, Hyderabad & ors.

Vs.

 

Durga Prasad s/o Shriram Kumar r/o Ward No. 12, VPO Mhiyawali Distt. Sriganganagar

 

 

Date of Order 16.02 .2016

 

 

Before:

Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Nisha Gupta- President

Mrs.Sunita Ranka -Member

 

Mr.Chanderdeep Singh Jodha counsel for the appellant

 

 

2

 

BY THE STATE COMMISSION ( PER HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE NISHA GUPTA,PRESIDENT):

 

This appeal has been filed against the judgment of learned DCF Sriganganagar dated 10.6.2015 whereby the liability has been fixed on the appellant.

 

The contention of the appellant is that policy has been taken by the non-applicant for three counts . Insurance was done and premium was charged. Accident benefit, rider and family income benefit were also extended only on the condition that claimant will submit postmortem report which was admittedly not submitted by the respondent. Hence, claim has rightly been repudiated.

 

Heard the counsel for the appellant and perused the impugned judgment.

 

There is no condition to the effect that only on submission of postmortem report, the claim could be considered. The fact has to be established that death has occurred due to accident and it is not the case of self injury, intoxication or mischief and before the court below the

3

 

respondent has amply proved the fact that son of the complainant was died due to the accident and it has been mentioned before the SHO Chunagarh that postmortem should not have been done as it is a clear case of accident. Charge sheet has been filed against the driver of the truck and the panchnama of the dead body also suggest that due to injuries suffered in the accident the son of the complainant died.

 

In view of the fact that when it was amply proved before the court below that son of the complainant was died due to accident, non payment of insured amount was deficiency on part of the appellant and the court below has rightly held so. There is no merit in the argument. The appeal is devoid of any basis and liable to be dismissed.

 

 

(Sunita Ranka) (Nisha Gupta )

Member President

 

 

nm