Heard the learned counsel for the appellant. None appears for the respondent.

2.              This appeal is  filed  U/S-15 of erstwhile  Consumer Protection Act,1986(herein-after called the Act). Hereinafter, the parties to this appeal shall be referred to  with reference to their respective status before the learned District Forum.

3.                  As it appears from the pleadings of the parties that one Prafulla Das , the deceased has purchased a LIC policy from the OP under Salary Savings Scheme  from the OP for sum assured of Rs.75,000/- commencing  from 03.01.2013   with maturity date January,2018. During subsistence of the policy the policy holder died. It appears from the pleadings that there is a nominee left in the policy but the mother of the deceased come forward  and filed the case claiming her share in the sum assured. Challenging the deficiency in service on the part of the OP, the complaint was filed.

4.          The OP No.1 refused to pay the sum assured citing that the nominee is only entitled to the insured amount. Therefore, they have no deficiency in service on their part.

  5.        After hearing  both the parties, learned
District Forum   has passed the following order:-

                      Xxxx         xxxxx           xxxxxxx

                      The complaint be and the same is allowed on contest. The OP No.1  is hereby directed to settle the claim in favour of the complainant out of which 50 % amount be paid to OP No.3 and other 50 %  be distributed  among the complainant and other legal heirs equally. The OP No.1 is also directed to pay the amount dues and benefits under the aforesaid policy to the complainant  and other legal heirs, as well as OP No.3 as per their entitlement. The OP NO.1  is further directed to pay Rs.3,000/- towards cost of the litigation to the complainant, within 30 days since the date of pronouncement of this order.”

6.               Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that learned District Forum has committed error in law by not deciding  the actual issue involved  in this case. According to him the impugned order is wrong and illegal by not asking about  the money to the nominee. He submitted that learned District Forum  has committed error in law by asking to pay 50 %  to the nominee and 50 % to the  legal heirs without specifying  who are  legal heirs.   Therefore,  he submitted that the impugned order should be set-aside  by allowing the appeal.

7.               Considered the submission of learned counsel for the appellant, perused the DFR and impugned order .

8.              It is admitted fact that the policy holder had purchased  the policy and during  subsistence  of policy he expired. It is also admitted fact that the nominee is the wife  of the policy holder and now mother has come  as complainant. Since,  the mother and the wife are the Class-I heirs  the entire sum  assured be shared  50-50%. It must be remembered that the sum assured  accrued to the  policy holder is self acquired policy.  So, the complainant and the OP No.3  are entitled to 50 %  each from the sum assured. Therefore, while confirming the impugned order, we hereby modified the impugned order by directing the OP No.1 to pay 50 %  of the sum assured  to complainant  and 50 % to the OP No.3 within a period of 45 days  from the date of the order, failing which it will carry 12 % interest per annum from the date of impugned order till date of payment. Rest of the impugned order will remain unaltered. No cost.

                Free copy of the order be supplied to the respective parties or they may download same from the confonet  or webtsite of this  Commission to treat same as copy of order received from this Commission.   

                DFR be sent back forthwith.