NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSIONNEW DELHIREVISION PETITION NO. 4636 OF 2009
(Against the Order dated 15/10/2009 in Appeal No. 1771/2002 of the State Commission Haryana)
1. USHA RANIResident of House No. 1537, Sector 14, Housing Board ColonySonipatHaryana
...........Petitioner(s)
Versus
1. INDIAN BANK & ANRThrough Its Bracnch Manager, Geeta Bhawan RoadSonepatHaryana2. LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INIDIAThrough Its Manager, SCO No. 9, 10, 11, Sector 17, Kurukshetra
...........Respondent(s)
BEFORE:
For the Petitioner :
NEMO
For the Respondent :
NEMO
Dated : 06 Jan 2010
ORDER
Petitioner along with authorised representative present. Factual backgrounds are that late Madan Mohan Lal, husband of petitioner, took life insurance policy from respondent-company for Rs.1,00,000/-. Against premium due for April 1998, the life insured issued cheque for Rs.8462.30 paise which was dishounered by respondent No.1 Bank, for insufficient fund to the credit of the insured. While so, insured died on 30.08.98, after which his widow lodged her claim with Life Insurance Corporation, which settled her claim making ex-gratia payment of Rs.50,000/- to widow of the deceased life assured. Since petitioner suspected some foul play on part of the Bank, matter was taken up before District Forum. Thereafter, it was found that Rs.10,000/- deposited by insured were not properly credited in his account, for which the policy had lapsed and the cheque issued by insured was bounced. When widow of deceased life assured did not get desired relief, she took up the matter to Consumer Redressal agency filing complaint, which on appraisal of the issue involved, found deficiency in service on part of bank and hence awarded compensation of Rs.50,000/- to petitioner payable by respondent No.1, Bank. Dissatisfied with finding recorded by District Forum, the Bank filed an appeal before State Commission, which, on evaluation of pleadings of the parties, recorded conclusive finding and while modifying award passed by District Forum, directed respondent Bank to make payment of compensation of Rs.75,000/- to the petitioner. Contentions raised for enhancement of award on behalf of the petitioner was that since petitioner suffered lot due to deficient service on part of respondent- Bank, Compensation awarded to the petitioner by State Commission would not mitigate the loss suffered by him. Having considered submissions made by the petitioner and regard being had to the quantum of award passed by State Commission, we are of the view that State Commission having considered suffering of petitioner has enhanced compensation from Rs.50,000/- to Rs.75,000/-, which cannot be said to be inadequate, we accordingly find no infirmity in order of the State Commission and the revision petition resultantly is dismissed, with no order as to costs.
Consumer Court Lawyer
Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.
