Petitioner in this revision petition was complainant before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kannur (for short the District Forum).  His grievance against the respondent-Life Insurance Corporation of India was that even though he has taken a money back policy with accident benefit and had suffered disability during the currency of the insurance policy, his claim under the said policy has been rejected by the respondent-opposite party illegally.  The respondent-opposite party had contested the complaint.  On assessment of the evidence after hearing the parties, the District Forum came to the conclusion that there was no merit in the complaint and, therefore, dismissed the same.

Aggrieved thereupon, the petitioner-complainant challenged the order dated 7^th of May, 2005 of the District Forum in an appeal before the Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Thiruvananthapuram (for short the State Commission).  His appeal too has been dismissed by the State Commission. 

Under the circumstances, feeling aggrieved once again that the complainant has filed this revision petition.

The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner-complainant had obtained an insurance policy with accident benefit for a sum of Rs.50,000/- from the respondent-opposite party.  According to him, while engaged in the job of painting a household unit there was a sudden burst/blast resulting in the loss of both his hands.  He, therefore, claimed the benefit under the terms of the accident benefit of the said insurance policy, which was rejected by the respondent-opposite party on the ground that he lost his limbs while handling explosives, which was an illegal act falling within the exclusion clause of the policy.  Referring to the entries in the claim form, they claimed that the accident/incident occurred not while engaged in the job of painting but while handling explosives.  Both the fora below have accepted the version of the respondent-opposite party and have dismissed the complaint. 

This revision petition has been filed with a delay of 87 days, for which application for condonation of delay has been filed.  The explanation offered in the said application states that the complainant being a disabled person depended on his local counsel to engage a counsel at Delhi, who failed to respond.  Subsequently, he himself fell ill and was bedridden.  It has been contended by the learned counsel that the delay was neither deliberate nor intentional and was because of the forced circumstances.

Shri Ashok Kumar Kashyap, learned counsel for the respondent-opposite party has opposed the application and has submitted that in the absence of any affidavit with regard to the date of receipt of copy of the order of the State Commission dated 25^th of August, 2008 after a period of two months, it cannot be said that he received the said order so late.  He further contends that as per his own showing, the revision petition was prepared in February, 2009 while the same has been filed in the month of April, 2009.  For this delay no explanation has been offered.

Having considered the plea advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner-complainant and on consideration of the fact that the complainant is a disabled person, the delay is condoned in the interest of justice.

On the merits of the case, learned counsel for the petitioner-complainant has submitted that both the fora below have given undue importance to a criminal case pending against the petitioner-complainant, alleging his involvement in illegal activities under the Explosive Act.  There was no direct or indirect evidence to connect the petitioner-complainant with the above offence or to substantiate the contention that the complainant suffered disability due to the illegal activity.  In the absence of any other evidence to connect or corroborate the alleged illegal act, the fora below could not conclusively hold that the complainant was guilty of the offence.  It may be stated here that during the pendency of revision petition before this Commission, the petitioner-complainant has filed an application for adducing additional evidence and has produced copy of the order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Payyanur dated 2^nd of April, 2009, vide which the application of the State for withdrawal of the criminal case registered against some accused persons, in which the complainant too was one of them, under Section 304 IPC and Sections 3, 5 & 6 of the Explosive Act, has been allowed by the Judge.  The application for adducing additional evidence has been objected to by the learned counsel for the respondent-opposite party contending that it is not permissible to bring additional evidence at such a belated stage when the matter already stands adjudicated by two fora below and in any case no such permission can be granted at the stage of revision.

On the merits of the case, Shri Kashyap has contended that even otherwise, the complainant cannot escape from the fact that he was dealing with explosives at the time of the accident.  This is apparent from the claim form at page 63 of the paper-book, which has been filled up and signed by his wife, who is the nominee under the policy.  In the form, against the column no.3, the following endorsement has been made by the nominee :-

Further, refuting the claim of the complainant that he was engaged in painting work at the time of accident, learned counsel for the respondent-opposite party has again referred to column no.6 of the claim form, in which in answer to the column ‘Mention your present vocation’, ‘agriculture’ has been stated and argued that the complainant was an agriculturist and not a painter.  He was involved in the illegal activities of manufacturing bombs and, therefore, the claim of being a painter was only an afterthought to cover up the said illegal activity.

Having considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel on the either side, this Commission is of the view that the withdrawal of the criminal proceedings against the complainant amongst others ipso facto does not establish his case that he was not handling the explosives.  The claim form, which has been filled up by his wife who is the nominee, clearly states that he was an agriculturist and not a painter and further that the incident occurred while dealing with explosives.  This is an important piece of evidence and coming from the wife of the complainant cannot be ignored.  Nobody can handle the explosives without any permit or authorization and, therefore, the contention of the respondent-opposite party that the complainant was engaged in illegal activity at the time of the accident cannot be disbelieved. 

Learned counsel for the respondent-opposite party has further referred to para 10.4 of the policy and has contended that even otherwise, the complainant not having lost both his hands would not be covered under the policy, as according to this provision, ‘amputation of both hands at or above the wrists’ would only make a life assured eligible for the same benefit.  In the case in hand, the complainant has lost only his palms and not the hands above wrist level (page 41 of the paper-book).  This is proved from the report of the ASJ at page 41 of the paper-book.  There is substance in what the learned counsel contends.

Overall, therefore, there is no illegality, material irregularity or jurisdictional error in the concurrent orders passed by the fora below.  The revision petition, accordingly, is dismissed with no order as to cost.