Madhya Pradesh

StateCommission

A/14/645

AVIVA LIC - Complainant(s)

Versus

RAJ KUMARI - Opp.Party(s)

SH. ALANKAR SONI

21 Oct 2022

ORDER

M. P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BHOPAL

PLOT NO.76, ARERA HILLS, BHOPAL      

 

                                  FIRST APPEAL NO. 645 OF 2014

(Arising out of order dated 20.11.2013 passed in C.C.No.206/2010 by District Commission, Ujjain)

 

AVIVA LIFE INSURANCE CO.LTD.                                                                …          APPELLANT

 

Versus

                 

RAJKUMARI.                                                                                                    …         RESPONDENT.

 

                                      

BEFORE:

 

                  HON’BLE SHRI A. K. TIWARI           :      PRESIDING MEMBER

                 HON’BLE DR. SRIKANT PANDEY   :    MEMBER

                                          

  

                                      O R D E R

 

21.10.2022

 

            Shri Alankar Soni, learned counsel for the appellant.

            None for the respondent.

                                   

As per A. K. Tiwari :                       

            This appeal is directed against the order dated 20.11.2013 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ujjain (for short ‘District Commission’) in C.C.No.206/2010 whereby the District Commission has allowed the complaint filed by the complainant/respondent directing the opposite party/appellant to pay Rs.1,20,000/- towards death claim along with interest @ 8% p.a. from 21.11.2012 till payment.

2.                Briefly put facts of the case as narrated by the complainant are that her husband during his life time had obtained an insurance policy under the scheme “Aviva Life Insurance-Kal Par Control” The policy was valid w.e.f. 24.07.2009 to 24.07.2029. During the currency of the policy on

-2-

18.10.2009 he died. On claim being made by the complainant/respondent, the opposite party/appellant insurance company repudiated the claim on the ground that intimation of death was not given. Duly claim form with requisite documents was not filed.

3.                Heard learned counsel for appellant on IA-3, application under Order 41 Rule 27 of CPC along with documents, filed by the appellant.

4.                Learned counsel for appellant submits that the said documents could not be filed before the District Commission and that the said documents are necessary to be taken on record for fair adjudication of the dispute. 

5.                We have heard learned counsel for the appellant.  Having gone through the documents we find that the same are necessary to be taken on record for fair adjudication of the complaint. In the circumstances, we allow the application.

6.                Copy of application and documents be sent to the District Commission along with record of the District Commission and copies be kept in the record. The District Commission is expected to decide the case as expeditiously as possible.

7.                Parties are permitted to file additional evidence in support of their respective claim.

 

-3-

8.                With the aforesaid observations and directions, the impugned order is set-aside. The appeal stands allowed. 

 

 

1. K. Tiwari)            (Dr. Srikant Pandey) 

              Presiding Member                Member