Per – Hon’ble Mrs. S. P. Lale, Member
This appeal has been filed by ‘Tata AIG General Insurance Company Ltd.’, the original Opponent No.2 as against the order dated 31/1/2009, passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Thane (‘the Forum’ in short) in Consumer Complaint No.95 of 2008, Smt. Latika Tukaram Sonawane & Ors. Vs. Road Safety Club Pvt. Ltd. & Anr., whereby the Forum partly allowed the consumer complaint and gave certain directions to the Appellant/original Opponent No.2 and dismissed the complaint as against the Respondent/original Opponent No.1. Feeling aggrieved by the impugned order, the Appellant/original Opponent No.2 has preferred this appeal before the State Commission.
[2] Facts giving rise to the consumer complaint, in brief, are that Deceased Mr. Tukaram Sonawane was a member of the Respondent No.7/original Opponent No.1 and the Respondent No.7/original Opponent No.1 issued a membership certificate. Membership obtained by the deceased was under a scheme called ‘Eco Classic Card’ and the deceased was entitled to various benefits available for the members of the Respondent No.7/original Opponent No.1. Said membership was between the Respondents Nos.1 to 6/original Complainants, on one hand and the Respondent No.7/original Opponent No.1, on the other. It is alleged by the Respondents Nos.1 to 6/original Complainants that the Respondent No.7/original Opponent No.1 has not paid the amount to the Respondents Nos.1 to 6/original Complainants as per the terms & conditions of the master insurance policy taken by the deceased. Mr. Tukaram Sonawane expired on 28/2/2005 and the Respondents Nos.1 to 7 lodged a claim with the Appellant. The Appellant repudiated the claim on 6/2/2008, and therefore, the Respondents Nos.1 to 6/original Complainants filed a consumer complaint before the Forum, alleging deficiency in service.
[3] The Appellant/original Opponent No.2 filed its written version before the Forum and contested the claim of the original Complainants and pleaded that complaint filed by the Respondents Nos.1 to 6/original Complainants as against the Appellant/original Opponent No.2 is not maintainable as the original Complainants have not filed any document to show that the Appellant/original Opponent No.2 has issued an insurance policy and has covered the victim of an accident, and therefore, in absence of such document the complaint is liable to be dismissed. It is further pleaded that the Appellant/original Opponent No.2 is in no way concerned in respect of membership under the ‘Eco Classic Card’, as mentioned in the complaint. Thus, the Appellant/original Opponent No.2 denied that it is liable to pay the policy amount.
[4] Upon hearing the parties and on perusal of the pleadings, documents and evidence adduced on the record, the Forum passed the impugned order.
[5] Heard Mr. Mehta, proxy for KMC LEGAL VENTURE, Advocate for the Appellant, Adv. Gole on behalf of the Respondents Nos.1 to 6 and Adv. Pradeep Gauali on behalf of the Respondent No.7.
[6] Perused the copy of the impugned order, memo of appeal and the documents placed on the record and we are finding that the impugned order passed by the Forum is erroneous and not sustainable in law. Learned District Forum failed to appreciate that the Appellant/original Opponent No.2 has not issued any insurance policy that covered the deceased Mr. Tukaram Sonawane. Learned District Forum further failed to appreciate that the Respondents Nos.1 to 6/original Complainants have not filed any document to show that the deceased was insured with the Appellant/original Opponent No.2 or the deceased was covered under the group insurance policy issued in favour of ‘Road Safety Club Pvt. Ltd’. Learned District Forum also failed to appreciate that in the present case, the Respondent No.7/original Opponent No.1 neither paid the insurance premium on behalf of the deceased nor, the name of the deceased was forwarded to the Appellant/original Opponent No.2 as a person whom the Respondent No.7/original Opponent No.1 intended to insure under the subject master policy. Thus, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the Appellant/original Opponent No.2. Learned District Forum arbitrarily allowed the complaint. Hence, under the circumstances, we allow the appeal filed by the Appellant/original Opponent No.2 and proceed to pass the following order:-
ORDER
The appeal is allowed.
Impugned order dated 31/1/2009, passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Thane in Consumer Complaint No.95 of 2008, stands quashed and set aside. Consequently, the consumer complaint stands dismissed. No order as to costs.
Pronounced on 30th August, 2011.
