KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION VAZHUTHACADU THIRUVANANTHAPURAM APPEAL:85/2009 JUDGMENT DATED.13..03..2009 PRESENT JUSTICE SHRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT SMT.VALSALA SARANGADHARAN : MEMBER SHRI.M.K. ABDULLA SONA : MEMBER 1.M/s New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Repd. by its CEO, New IndiaAssuranceBuilding, 87, Mahatma Gandhi Road, Fort Mumbai-400 023. 2.The Divisional Manager, M/s New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Divisional Office:710 600, : APPELLANTS TaraporeTowers, III Floor, 826, Annasalai, Chennai-600 002. 3.The Branch Manager, M/s New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Pathanamthitta Branch, Pathanamthitta. (By Adv: Sri. S.Subha) V. 1.P.Rajeswarai, Matha Silk House, Pazhavangadi.P.O, Ittiyapara, Ranni. 2.Lekshmy Jagadish, : RESPONDENTS Madhu Bhavan, Karikulam.P.O, Ranni. 3.Madhu Purushothaman, Madhu Bhavan, Karikulam.P.O, Ranni. 4.Manju Purushothaman, Madhu Bhavan, Karikulam.P.O, Ranni. JUDGMENT JUSTICE SHRI.K.R. UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT The appellant is the opposite party/New India Assurance Company Ltd. that has challenged the order of the Forum in OP:124/04 in the file of CDRF, Pathanamthitta. The Forum has ordered the appellant to pay a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- with interest at 10% from the date of complaint and compensation of Rs.10,000/- and cost of Rs.2,500/-. It is also ordered that the amounts are to be paid within one month from the date of receipt of the order and in default to pay interest at the rate of 12%. 2. The case of the complainants who are the legal heirs of the deceased Purushothaman is that, late Purushothaman had taken a Janatha Personal Accident Insurance Policy with the opposite party for a sum of Rs.3,00,000/-. Purushothaman died in a train accident during the policy period, but the claim was repudiated by the appellant. The policy coverage is Rs.3,00,000/-. The complainants had claimed the above amount with interest and compensation of Rs.25,000/-. 3. The opposite parties had contended that there was discrepancy with respect to the claim. It is mentioned that the claim was made after a long gap of one year and that the Chemical Analysis report was not submitted. 4. The evidence adduced consisted of the testimony of PW1, A1 to A18, DW1 and B1 to B8. 5. On a consideration of the judgment in the matter we find that the deceased was a business man. It was explained by the complainants that it was subsequently, during examining the papers of the deceased that the existence of the insurance policy came to the notice of the complainants. The above was the reason for the delay. The complainants had produced FIR, inquest report, final report, postmortem report, death certificate etc in the matter. There is nothing to show that the stomach contents were sent for chemical analysis. Even if there was such a report it could have been possible for the investigator of the opposite party to get the same. We find that the complainants had produced whatever available documents they had as to the matter. 6. In the circumstances we find that the reasons mentioned for repudiating the claim do not appear to be convincing. We find no reason to interfere in the order of the Forum. In the result the appeal is dismissed in-limine. JUSTICE K.R.UDAYABHANU: PRESIDENT VALSALA SARANGADHARAN: MEMBER M.K. ABDULLA SONA : MEMBER VL.
......................JUSTICE SHRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU
......................SMT.VALSALA SARNGADHARAN
......................SRI.M.K.ABDULLA SONA | | 
