Karnataka

StateCommission

A/1834/2013

The Branch Manager, Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Co. Ltd - Complainant(s)

Versus

Ramappa Gundappa Padageri - Opp.Party(s)

J.R.J

05 Jul 2022

ORDER

BEFORE THE KARNATAKA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BANGALORE

 

DATED THIS THE 05^TH DAY OF JULY 2022

 

PRESENT

 

SRI. RAVI SHANKAR                         : JUDICIAL MEMBER

SMT. SUNITA C. BAGEWADI              : MEMBER

 

Appeal No. 1834/2013

 

The Branch Manager Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Co. Ltd. Vivekanand Hospital Road Deshpande Nagar, Hubli Rep. by M. Aravinda Zonal Legal Manager   (By Sri. J.R. Jagadish) V/s	….Appellant
Ramappa Gundappa Padageri R/of Hattimattur Savanur Taluk, Haveri District	..…Respondent

O R D E R

 

BY SRI RAVISHANKAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER

The OP preferred this appeal against the order dated 31.10.2013 passed in C.C.No.15/2011 on the file of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Dharwad.

2. Heard from appellant.  LA for appellant submits that the complainant claimed sum assured of Rs.1,50,000/- for personal accident benefit by virtue of policy bearing No. 55561045.
3. The District Commission after trial had directed this appellant to pay assured amount of Rs.1,50,000/- along with 6% interest p.a..  Policy terms and conditions clearly discloses that for partial disablement this appellant is liable to pay 50% of the assured amount.  Without considering the policy terms and conditions District Commission directed this appellant to pay Rs.1,50,000/- along with interest at 6% p.a.  Hence, prayed to set aside the order and ready to pay 50% of the assured amount as per the terms and conditions of the policy.
4. On going through the certified copy of the order and policy terms and conditions under Clause 47 Section 45(a) categorically says that wherever permanent partial disablement is found this appellant is liable only to pay 50% of the assured amount, but, the District Commission failed to appreciate the terms and conditions of the policy and wrongly awarded payment of assured amount which in our opinion is not in accordance with law.  Hence, order passed by the District Commission requires modification.  Accordingly, appeal is allowed and the impugned order is modified by directing OP to pay 50% of the assured amount to the complainant without any interest.  Other portion of the order remains unaltered.
5. The amount in deposit shall be transmitted to the District Commission for disbursement to complainant and excess amount if any shall be payable to OP.

 

MEMBER                                   JUDICIAL MEMBER

CV*