NCDRC

NCDRC

RP/1466/2010

GAYATRI DEVI & ORS. - Complainant(s)

Versus

LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA - Opp.Party(s)

MR. K.G. MISHRA

21 Jan 2011

ORDER

NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
NEW DELHI
 
REVISION PETITION NO. 1466 OF 2010
 
(Against the Order dated 23/02/2010 in Appeal No. 986/2008 of the State Commission Delhi)
1. GAYATRI DEVI & ORS.
Residents of C-238, Chinyot Basti, Multani Dhanda, Pahar Ganj
New Delhi - 110055
Delhi
2. PRAKASH CHAND GUPTA
Residents of C-238, Chenyot Basti, Multani Dhanda, Pahar Ganj
New Delhi - 110055
Delhi
3. PAWAN GUPTA
Residents of C-238, Chenyot Basti, Multani Dhanda, Pahar Ganj
New Delhi - 110055
Delhi
4. TAPAN GUPTA
Residents of C-238, Chenyot Basti, Multani Dhanda, Pahar Ganj
New Delhi - 110055
Delhi
5. PREETI KESARWANI, W/O. ANUJ KESARWANI
C/o. Daya Chand Kesarwani, 122/11, Ram Das Estate, Lal Bagh
Lucknow
Uttar Pradesh
...........Petitioner(s)
Versus 
1. LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA
Through its Branch Manager, Branch No. 116, Laxmi Insurance Building, Asaf Ali Road
New Delhi
Delhi
...........Respondent(s)

BEFORE: 
 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK BHAN, PRESIDENT
 HON'BLE MRS. VINEETA RAI, MEMBER

For the Petitioner :MR. K.G. MISHRA
For the Respondent :NEMO

Dated : 21 Jan 2011
ORDER

Complainant/petitioner’s husband had taken a policy for a sum of Rs.5 Lac on 12.2.2005.  He died on 10.5.2005 within a period of three months of taking of the policy.  Claim lodged by the petitioner was repudiated, aggrieved against which the petitioner filed the complaint before the District Forum.

         

-2-

District Forum allowed the complaint and directed the respondent insurance company to pay the assured amount but without any interest. 

Respondent complied with the order and paid the sum of             Rs.5 Lacs in full and final settlement in the presence of Advocate of the petitioner.  Sh. K. G. Mishra, Advocate had signed as witness on the settlement arrived at.

          Against the order passed by the District Forum denying the interest on the awarded amount and compensation, petitioner filed the appeal before the State Commission seeking interest on the awarded amount.

          State Commission has rejected the appeal.  It has been held that the petitioner having accepted the amount in full and final settlement could not be entitled to get the interest or the compensation.

We agree with the view taken by State Commission.  The awarded amount was accepted by petitioner in full and final settlement which was witnessed by counsel for the petitioner.  Petitioner had the advantage of the advise of lawyer and inspite of

-3-

that the petitioner accepted the money without protest.  We will assume that the petitioner had accepted the sum in full and final settlement of the dispute.  Dismissed.

 

 
......................J
ASHOK BHAN
PRESIDENT
......................
VINEETA RAI
MEMBER

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.