Rajasthan

StateCommission

A/668/2015

Bajaj Allianz Gen. In. Co. Ltd. throughn its Authorised Signatory - Complainant(s)

Versus

Radha w/o Late Rochi Ram Santani - Opp.Party(s)

Vizzy Agarwal

26 Apr 2016

ORDER

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

 

 

FIRST APPEAL NO: 668 /2015

 

Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd. Head office & regd.office GE Plaza, Airport Road, Yerwada,Pune & ors.

Vs.

 

Radha w/o Late Rochiram Santani r/o House No. 3946, Langar ke Balaji ka Rasta, Nathuji ki Gali, Purani Basti,Jaipur.

 

Date of Order 26.4.2016

 

Before:

Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Nisha Gupta- President

Mrs. Meena Mehta -Member

 

Mr.Vizzy Agarwal counsel for the appellants

Mr.Rajkumar Sharma counsel for the respondent

 

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

 

2

 

This appeal has been filed against the judgment of the District Forum, Jaipur 3^rd dated 25.3.2015 whereby the claim has been allowed against the respondent.

 

The contention of the appellant is that there is no evidence to support the contention that deceased had died due to fall from roof at his residence on 13.10.2007. No postmortem report has been submitted to support this contention and affidavit of six witnesses were presented but none has deposed that they are the eye witnesses to the accident.Per contra the Admission and Discharge record of the SMS Medical College & Hospital,Jaipur submitted by the appellant shows that the deceased was admitted in the hospital on 8.10.2007 at 7.45 a.m. He was unconscious at that time. It has also been noted that he was found unconscious in his room in morning hours whereas he was alright in the night and further more it has been specifically mentioned that there is no history of trauma or fall etc. It has also been mentioned in the history that he is chronic alcoholic and chronic smoker. These facts clearly suggest that theory of accident on 13.10.2007 is false one and appeal should have been allowed.

 

3

 

Per contra the contention of the respondent is that deceased has died an accidental death. Witnesses have support the same contention hence, claim has rightly been allowed and no interference is needed in the impugned judgment.

 

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

 

The case of the complainant is that deceased had died an accidental death on 13.10.2007. During course of arguments it has been submitted that immediately he was taken to the hospital but no document of the concerned hospital has been submitted to support this contention. Affidavit of witnesses were submitted but none of the witness has stated that in his presence the accident has occurred. Hence, these affidavits have not evidential value.

 

In view of the above the complainant has utterly failed to support the contention that deceased has died an accidental death on 13.10.2007. The fact become also suspicious in the light of the documents submitted by the appellant in which the deceased was admitted in the hospital on 8.10.2007 and was taken away without medical opinion on the same day and at the

4

 

time of admission he was suffering from CVA, Hypertension and Intracerebral bleed and there is nothing on record to show that deceased has not died due to the above complication and has died accidental death. Hence, the findings of the Forum below are perverse and liable to be set aside.

 

In view of above the appeal is allowed and the judgment dated 25.3.2015 passed by the District Forum,Jaipur 3^rd is set aside.

 

(Meena Mehta) (Nisha Gupta )

Member President

 

nm