This Revision Petition under, Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short “the Act”), by Opposite Parties No.1, 2 and 3 respectively in the Complaint, is directed against the order dated 08.08.2016 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab at Chandigarh (for short “the State Commission”) in First Appeal No.969 of 2015.  By the impugned order, while affirming the order dated 22.07.2015, passed by the District Consumer Disputes

-3-

Redressal Forum at Tarn Taran (for short “the District Forum”) in Consumer Complaint No.59 of 2014 on merits, the State Commission has partly allowed the Appeal preferred by the National Insurance Company Limited (for short “the Insurance Company”), Opposite Parties No.4 and 5 in the Complaint, reducing the amount of compensation from ₹10,00,000/- to ₹5,00,000/- and exonerating them from the liability to pay to the Complainant the claim preferred by her for the accidental death of her husband, the Insured, under the Sahara Swaran Yojana on 16.12.2003. 

               The short grievance of the Petitioners in this Revision Petition is that the State Commission was not justified in exonerating the Insurance Company from its liability under the said Scheme, inasmuch as the insurance cover had been issued by them and the claim made by the Complainant on 18.05.2012 was also repudiated by them.

               Having carefully perused the impugned order and the documents placed on record, we are unable to persuade ourselves to agree with the learned Counsel.

               It is evident from the material on record that the Insurance Company had repudiated the claim on the ground that the same was filed beyond the limitation period of 30 days as well as the extended period of 15 days.  The State Commission has returned a categorical

-4-

finding to the effect that despite adequate opportunity, the Petitioners herein did not lead any evidence to show that the policy cover, indicating the period within which a claim under the policy had to be preferred, was communicated to the Insured or to the Complainant and therefore, her claim could not be repudiated on the afore-stated ground. On a pointed query by us, although the learned Counsel stated that the policy conditions were put up on the Board where the Insured was working, but is unable to point out any document to contradict the afore-said finding by the Fora below.

               In that view of the matter, we do not find any Jurisdictional error in the impugned order warranting our interference in the Revisional Jurisdiction.  Consequently, the Revision Petition fails and is dismissed accordingly.

               Needless to add that dismissal of the Petition will not come in the way of the Petitioners in resorting to adequate remedy for recovery of the said amount from the Insurance Company, if so advised.