KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

APPEAL No. 269/2020

JUDGMENT DATED: 18.11.2024

(Against the Order in C.C. 118/2019 of DCDRC, Kasaragod)

PRESENT:

SRI. AJITH KUMAR D.                                                    : JUDICIAL MEMBER

SRI. RADHAKRISHNAN K.R.                                        : MEMBER

APPELLANT:

The Manager, Reliance Nippon Life Insurance Co. Ltd., Branch Office, Kasaragod New Bus Stand, Kasaragod.

            (By Adv. Sachin Daga & Adv. Suja Madhav)

                                  Vs.

RESPONDENTS:

1. Geetha Thomas, W/o Thomas Joseph, Kurialpuzha House, Badiadka, Perdala P.O., Kasaragod Taluk, Kasaragod District.

2. Jithin Thomas Joseph, S/o Thomas Joseph, Kurialpuzha House, Badiadka, Perdala P.O., Kasaragod Taluk, Kasaragod District.

3. Joyal Thomas, S/o Thomas Joseph, Kurialpuzha House, Badiadka, Perdala P.O., Kasaragod Taluk, Kasaragod District.

JUDGMENT

SRI. AJITH KUMAR D.    : JUDICIAL MEMBER

This is an appeal filed by the opposite party in C.C. No. 118/2019 before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kasaragod (District Commission for short).  The respondents 1 to 3 are the complainants. On 13.12.2019  the complaint was allowed by the District Commission and directed the opposite party to disburse the entire policy amount of Rs. 55,680/- (Rupees Fifty Five Thousand Six Hundred and Eighty only) with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of complaint till payment and to pay Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) as compensation and Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand only) as costs. 

2.  The complainants had approached the District Commission by resorting to Sec. 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 alleging deficiency in service.  The complainant is the wife of Thomas Joseph who had subscribed a life insurance policy with the opposite party from 06.01.2011.  The policy bears cash flow plan for ten years on the assured sum of Rs. 55,680/- (Rupees Fifty Five Thousand Six Hundred and Eighty only).  Sri. Thomas Joseph had remitted the premium and hence he is entitled to get the entire assured sum and other benefits.  On 05.01.2019 Sri. Thomas Joseph died on account of a fall from an Aracanut tree.  After his demise, the complainants, the legal heirs of the deceased had approached the opposite party with a request to furnish the details of the aforesaid policy.  But the opposite party was reluctant to disclose or disburse the amount and insisted for production of AB & C claim duly signed by attending doctor.  The complainant had expressed their inability to find out such a doctor.  They had caused issuance of a lawyer notice demanding the sum assured to which there was no reply.  Hence the complaint was filed. 

3.  On admission of the complaint, notice was issued to the opposite party.  Though notice was served on the opposite party, the opposite party did not turn up and hence the opposite party was set exparte.

4.  The 1^st complainant has filed affidavit in lieu of chief examination and Exhibits A1 to A5 were marked on the side of the complainants.  Based upon the evidence of the complainants, the impugned order was passed by the District Commission. 

5.  The appellant would assail the order of the District Commission on the following grounds.  The main attack against the order is that the order was passed exparte.  According to the appellant, no opportunity was provided to the appellant in contesting the matter.  No notice was served on the registered office address of the appellant.  The complainants had approached the District Commission with unclean hands and hence the District Commission ought to have dismissed the complaint.  It is also averred that the 1^st complainant did not perform her duty in disclosing the material information so as to honour the claim.  Therefore, the appellant would seek for setting aside the order passed by the District Commission. 

6.  Heard the counsel for the appellant.  The records from the District Commission were called for and perused.  Though notice was served on the respondents/complainants they remained absent. 

7.  The main argument advanced by the appellant is that no notice was served on the appellant on the complaint filed by the complainant before the District Commission.  On perusal of the records, it could be seen that on 16.01.2020 the notice issued by the District Commission was duly acknowledged by the Manager, Reliance Life Insurance Co. Ltd., New Bus Stand, Kasaragod.  The acknowledgment card bears the office seal of the opposite party.  Even after receiving the notice and the copy of the complaint, the appellant remained silent.  So, the plea raised by the appellant that the appellant was unaware about the proceedings initiated by the District Commission is devoid of any merit.  Ext. A1 is the copy of the lawyer notice issued by the complainant dated 13.02.2019.  Ext. A2 is the acknowledgement card pertaining to Ext. A1 to the effect that the opposite party had received the notice on 16.02.2019.  Ext. A3 is the copy of the First Information Report registered by the Badiadka Police as Crime No. 11/2019 under Section 174 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.  The crime was registered on an allegation that one Tojo @ Thomas Joseph had fallen from an Aracanut tree and succumbed to death on account of the injuries at Father Mullars Hospital, Mangalapuram.  Ext. A4 is the certificate of death issued by the Registrar of Births and Deaths, Chengala Grama Panchayath to the effect that Thomas Joseph died on 05.01.2019.  Ext. A5 is the family membership certificate issued by the Village Officer, Badiyadukka Village that the complainants 1 to 3 are the members of the family of the deceased Thomas Joseph.  Ext. A6 is the policy document issued by the opposite party.  As per Ext. A6 it could be seen that the life of the deceased Thomas Joseph was assured up to 06.01.2021.  The insured died on 05.01.2019 which is within the period covered by Ext. A6.  So Exhibits A1 to A6 would convincingly establish that the complainants are entitled to get the sum assured and there is refusal on the part of the opposite party in honouring the claim.  The District Commission had properly appreciated the evidence and reached a correct conclusion.  The compensation and costs ordered by the District Commission is also reasonable and adequate.  We cannot find any illegality or irregularity in the order passed by the District Commission.  The appeal lacks merit and is only to be dismissed. 

In the result, the appeal is dismissed.  On consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, the parties shall bear their respective costs. 

The respondents are permitted to receive the amount deposited by the appellant at the time of filing the appeal to be adjusted/credited towards the amount ordered by the District Commission, on proper acknowledgement.     

AJITH KUMAR  D. : JUDICIAL MEMBER

                                                                        RADHAKRISHNAN K.R.  : MEMBER

jb