Rajasthan

StateCommission

A/2000/2010

United India Insurece Co. Ltd. - Complainant(s)

Versus

Rameshwar Parsad S/o Lishan Lal - Opp.Party(s)

Rizwan Ahmad

19 Feb 2015

ORDER

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

 

FIRST APPEAL NO: 2000/2010

 

United India Insurance Co. through Dy.Manager, Sahara Chambers, Tonk Road, Jaipur

Vs.

Rameshwar Prasad s/o Late Lishan Lal (Deceased represented through) 1/1 Chandrakala w/o Late Rameshwar Prasad ½ Rajkumar s/o Late Rameshwar Prasad 1/3 Pawan Kumar s/o Late Rameshwar Prasad all r/o Nadoti Tehsil Distt. Karoli and Asstt.Engineer O & M Deskcom Nadoti & ors.

 

Date of Order 19.02.2015

 

Before:

 

Hon'ble Mr.Vinay Kumar Chawla-Presiding Member

Mr. Kailash Soyal - Member

 

Mr.Abhishek Bhandari counsel for the appellant

Mr.Shashi Bhushan Gupta counsel for complainant- respondents

Mr.R.K.Sharma counsel for JVVNL

2

 

BY THE STATE COMMISSION

 

This appeal has been preferred against judgment dated 8.7.2010 passed by the learned DCF Karoli by which it allowed the complaint.

 

Brief facts of this case are that the complainant Rameshwar Prasad was working as a Helper in the office of Asstt.Engineer, JVVNL. On 12.6.2000 he fell from an electric pole while on duty and sustained injuries resulting paralysis of lower part of the body. The JVVNL had taken a Cumulative Accident Policy for its employees and a claim was lodged with the Insurance Company. The Insurance Company rejected the claim on the ground that JVVNL had not forwarded the premium in respect of the policy. A consumer complaint was filed before the learned DCF, Karoli. It found that the premium had been duly paid and ordered the Insurance Company to pay the insurance amount. During pendency of this complaint, Rameshwar Prasad died and his wife and two sons were substituted in place of him.

 

During arguments the learned counsel for the Insurance Company submitted that while submitting the amended title of the complaint an additional affidavit of Pawan Kumar was filed

3

 

and Insurance Company was not given any opportunity to rebut the affidavit. Thus, the case should be remanded back to the learned DCF. He also argued that during pendency of the appeal JVVNL had submitted a certificate regarding payment of premium which is an additional evidence and cannot be submitted at this stage.

 

We have heard the respective counsels for the parties. We are of the view that the argument of the learned counsel for the Insurance Company are devoid of any merit. The additional affidavit filed by Pawan Kumar who is the son of deceased Rameshwar Prasad does not contain any new fact which needs to be controverted by the Insurance Company. The parties had completed their evidence before Rameshwar Prasad died. Thus, there is no additional evidence on part of the complainant. The JVVNL had filed a certificate of the bank on 21.11.2013 showing that the premium amount had been paid to the Insurance Company. The argument of the learned counsel for the appellant that this document cannot be filed during appeal is of no avail. The Insurance Company in fact had received the premium but repudiated the claim on filmsy grounds.

 

We find no merit in this appeal. The appeal of the

4

 

Insurance Company deserves to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed. The order of the learned DCF shall be complied within one month.

 

 

(Kailash Soyal) (Vinay Kumar Chawla)

Member Presiding Member

nm