Rajasthan

StateCommission

A/1061/2015

Rjasthan State Road Transport Corparation Through Chief Manager - Complainant(s)

Versus

Rajesh Kumar S/o Late Sh. Badri Lal Dhakad - Opp.Party(s)

V.B.Mathur

29 Jan 2016

ORDER

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

 

 

FIRST APPEAL NO: 1061 /2015

 

Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation,Baran Depot,Baran through Chief Manager

 

Vs.

 

Rajesh Kumar s/o Late Badrilal Dhakad r/o village Doulta, Post Panwad,Tehsil Deoli Distt. Tonk. & ors.

 

 

Date of Order 29.01.2016

 

 

Before:

Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Nisha Gupta- President

Mrs.Sunita Ranka -Member

 

Mr. Vinod Bihari Mathur counsel for the appellant

 

 

2

 

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

 

 

The appeal has been filed against the judgment of learned DCF Jaipur 3^rd dated 22.7.2015.

 

The short facts of the case are that father of the complainant Badrilal was employed with respondent no.2 RSRTC and premium of Rs.42/- was deducted from his salary for group insurance. Premium was deducted on 28.5.97. On 7.5.98 the father of the complainant died and claim has been denied on the ground that no policy was in force on 7.5.98.

 

The contention of the appellant is that he has submitted the policy no. 1999/42/00177 which was in force from 1.6.98 to 31.5.99 and he has not committed any deficiency.

 

Heard the counsel for the appellant and perused the impugned order.

 

There is no dispute about the fact that premium amount of Rs.42/- has been deducted from the salary of the father of the

3

 

complainant on 28.5.97 but for the above premium no policy has been get issued by appellant and no such policy has been submitted before the court below. Hence, the court below has rightly held that it was the duty of present appellant to get group insurance on the premium charged from the father of the complainant but even after passing of more than one year premium has not been deposited with respondent no.2 and no policy has been issued thereon. Hence, it was deficiency in service on the part of appellant and the court below has rightly allowed the claim and no interference is needed and the appeal is liable to be rejected.

 

 

(Sunita Ranka) (Nisha Gupta )

Member President

 

 

nm