Rajasthan

StateCommission

A/444/2016

Sahara India Commercial Corporation Ltd. - Complainant(s)

Versus

Miss Punam Kanwar Through Mother Smt. Santosh Kanwar - Opp.Party(s)

Adarsh Verma

19 Aug 2016

ORDER

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

 

FIRST APPEAL NO: 444 /2016

 

Sahara India Commercial Corporation Ltd. Branch Sikar through Br.Manager & ors.

Vs.

Sushree Poonam Kanwar through guardian Smt.Santosh Kanwar r/o Jhadli Tehsil Srimadhopur, Sikar & ors.

 

FIRST APPEAL NO: 622/2016

 

National Insurance Company Ltd. Divisional Office (IV) 43, Jeevan Bhawan, Phase I, 43 Hajratganj Lucknow through regional manager, regional office, Jeevan Nidhi Building, Ambedkar Circle Jaipur.

Vs.

Smt.Mooli Devi w/o Lalram Mali r/o Kalyanganj, Bassi Distt. Jaipur & ors.

 

FIRST APPEAL NO: 535/2016

 

Sahara India, Opp.Khadi Gramodyog, Tehsil Bassi Distt. Jaipur through Br.Manager & ors.

2

Vs.

 

Smt.Mooli Devi w/o late Sh.Lalram Mali r/o Kalyanganj Tehsil Bassi, Distt. Jaipur & ors.

 

Date of Order 6.4.2017

 

Before:

Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Nisha Gupta- President

Hon'ble Mrs. Meena Mehta -Member

 

Mr. Vinod Tyagi counsel for the National Insurance Company

Mr.Anil Gupta counsel for Mooli Devi complainant

Mr.Ajayraj Tantia counsel for Poonam Kanwar complainant

Mr.Alok Fatehpuria counsel for Sahara India

 

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

 

These appeals have been filed against the order dated 1.4.2016 and 25.4.2016 respectively of the District Forum,Jaipur 3^rd but as all the three appeals contain a common issue hence, are decided by this common order.

 

3

 

 

The contention of Sahara India is that they are not responsible for payment of compensation as the insurance company has agreed to pay personal accident cover as per table no. II vide its letter dated 26.9.2006. Hence, the Sahara India should be exonerated from the liability.

 

Per contra the contention of the insurance company is that they never agreed to pay the coverage as per table no. II. They have never accepted the liability. The liability is only limited one. Hence, they may be exonerated accordingly.

 

The contention of the consumer is that he is suffering by non compliance of the order and further his contention is that controversy has already been settled by this Commission in First Appeal No. 742/2015 (Sahara India Commercial Corporation Vs. Lakshmi Devi Jain). Hence, the insurance company should be made liable.

 

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

 

 

4

 

 

There is no dispute about the fact that the consumer was under insurance cover. The only controversy is whether insurance company is liable to pay as per table no. II of the schedule. The insurance company has relied upon the judgment passed by the National Commission in Revision Petition No. 1162/2014 Sahara India Commercial Corporation Vs. Gomti Devi & ors. where in reply to the letter dated 8.2.2005 the insurance company has denied their liability and reply is dated 7.3.2005. Both these documents are not in dispute but thereafter vide its letter dated 27.9.2005 and 26.9.2006 the insurance company has admitted its liability as per table no. II and in view of the above this Commission has already decided the controversy in Lakshmi Devi (supra) and Forum below has also considered the judgment passed by the National Commission in Gomti Devi (supra). Hence in view of the letters dated 27.9.2005 and 26.9.2006 it can safely be concluded that insurance company is liable as per table no. II. Hence, the Sahara India could not be saddled with any liability.

 

In view of the above Appeal Nos. 444/2016 and

 

5

 

535/2016 filed by Sahara India Commercial Corporation are allowed and Appeal No. 622/2016 filed by National Insurance Company is dismissed.

 

(Meena Mehta) (Nisha Gupta)

Member President

 

 

nm