Rajasthan

StateCommission

A/242/2018

Prabhu Lal s/o Hira Lal - Complainant(s)

Versus

Exide Life Insurance Company Limited - Opp.Party(s)

S.P.Gandhi

23 Jan 2019

ORDER

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

 

FIRST APPEAL NO: 242/2018

 

Prabhulal s/o Heeralal r/o 65, village Hanutia Tehsil Vijaynagar, Distt. Ajmer.

Vs.

Exide Life Insurance Co.Ltd., (ING) Br.Office 2^nd floor, Agarwal Motor Co., Jaipur Road, Ajmer & ors.

 

 

Date of Order 23.1.2019

 

Before:

Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Nisha Gupta- President

Mrs. Meena Mehta -Member

 

Mr.S.P.Gandhi counsel for the appellant

Mr. Varun Chauhan counsel for the respondent

 

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

 

2

 

This appeal is filed against the order of the learned District Forum, Ajmer dated 7.3.2018 whereby the complaint is dismissed.

 

The contention of the appellant is that insured has not made any misrepresentation regarding age of insured and to support the age Pan Card and Voter ID has been submitted. Hence, the claim should have been allowed.

 

Per contra the contention of the respondent is that as per the voter list the age of the insured was found much more than the declared. The Forum below has rightly dismissed the claim as the amount has been received as full and final settlement.

 

Heard the counsel for the parties and perused the impugned judgment as well as original record of the case.

 

The Forum below has dismissed the claim mainly on the ground that appellant has received the cheque of Rs. 14,756/- as full and final settlement but this contention is contrary to the facts found on the record as cheque of Rs. 14,756/- was never encashed by the appellant and original has been submitted as

3

 

Anx. 2 and this is also not the case of the respondent that cheque has been encashed. Hence, it is more than clear that the appellant has not received any amount much less the full and final settlement.

 

It is not in dispute that proposal form was filled by the insured and date of birth has been shown as 1.10.1961 which is also supported by Anx. 4 Pan Card and Anx. 3 Identity Card of Election Commission of India.

 

Per contra the respondent has submitted the voter list of 2003 wherein her age has been shown as 62 years, in 2014 her age is shown as 71 years and in 2008 her age has been shown as 65 years. All these voter lists contained different age of the insured and otherwise also the voter list is not a document to prove the age of a person. Death entry register of gram panchayat also shows the age of the deceased on 10.3.2014 as 53 years. It also corroborates the age shown in the proposal form.

 

As per Anx. 9 the claim was repudiated on the ground that age proof submitted alongwith the proposal form is

4

 

fraudulent but no evidence has been submitted to show that Pan Card or identity card of Election Commissioner is forged one. Per contra the appellant has rightly pointed out that voter ID and Pan Card was submitted and no misrepresentation has been made as regard to age of the insured.

 

In view of the above , the appeal is allowed and the order of the Forum below dated 7.3.2018 is set aside. The appellant is entitled to get sum assured Rs. 2 lakhs alongwith 9% interest from the date of submission of the claim. The appellant is also entitled to get Rs. 20,000/- as cost of proceedings. Order be complied within one month.

 

(Meena Mehta) (Nisha Gupta)

Member President

 

 

nm