Rajasthan

StateCommission

A/1270/2015

Smt. Saroj Agarwal w/o Prof. K.B.Agarwal - Complainant(s)

Versus

Life Insurance Corp. Kotawala Bulilding - Opp.Party(s)

K.N.Pareek

10 Mar 2016

ORDER

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

 

 

FIRST APPEAL NO: 1270 /2015

 

Mrs.Saroj Agarwal w/o Prof.K.B.Agarwal r/o 6/146 Malviya Nagar, Jaipur.

 

Vs.

 

Life Insurance Corporation, Kotawala Building, Tripolia Bazar, Jaipur through Branch Manager & ors.

 

 

Date of Order 10.3.2016

 

Before:

Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Nisha Gupta- President

Mr. Kailash Soyal -Member

 

Mr.K.B. Agarwal counsel for the appellant

Mr.J.P. Sharma counsel for the respondents

 

 

2

 

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

 

This appeal has been filed against the judgment of the learned DCF, Jaipur 4^th dated 16.9.2015 whereby the complaint of the appellant has been dismissed.

 

The contention of the appellant is that it is not in dispute that the appellant took the policy and Rs. 24,000/- pension has to be deposited yearly in her account which were not deposited by the respondents.

 

The contention of the respondent before the court below was that certificate to this effect that the appellant is alive has not been furnished in time hence, pension could not be deposited and on this ground also the court below has rejected the complaint.

 

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

 

The contention of the appellant is that there is no

 

3

 

condition which requires furnishing life certificate on the day the pension falls due but this argument is groundless as there is a specific condition in the impugned policy that the subsistence of life of pensioner at twelve O'clock on the day on which the said pension falls due being duly certified from time to time in such manner as the Corporation may require.

 

In view of the above there was a condition between the parties of furnishing the life certificate and for the same on 8.102009 a reminder was issued to the appellant. The contention of the appellant was that it was sent late and received by her on 21.11.2009. Be that may be the case the complainant has not shown that on which date she has furnished the live certificate. Hence, when the life certificate has not been furnished by the complainant, there was no deficiency on the part of the respondent and the court below has rightly dismissed the claim.

 

It has also been argued by both the parties that how much amount has been taken on loan by the complainant but as the matter has been dismissed on the breach of policy condition, the merit of the same are irrelevant. Hence, there is no need to discuss this issue.

 

4

 

In view of the above there is no merit in this appeal and the appeal is liable to be rejected.

 

(Kailash Soyal) (Nisha Gupta )

Member President

 

 

nm