Haryana

StateCommission

A/379/2016

RELIANCE GEN.INSURANCE CO. - Complainant(s)

Versus

SANEEV - Opp.Party(s)

ROHIT GOSWAMI

02 Dec 2016

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                 

First Appeal No  : 379 of 2016

Date of Institution: 03.05.2016

Date of Decision : 02.12.2016

 

The Manager, Reliance Life Insurance Company, Reliance House 6^th Floor No. 6, Haddows Road, Nungambakkam Chennai-600006

                                      Appellant-Opposite Party

 Versus

 

1.      Sanjeev son of Rajender.

2.      Smt. Sumitra widow of Sh. Rajender Singh son of Shis Ram Singh both resident of village Jhanswa, Tehsil Matanhail Distt. Jhajjar.                             

                                      Respondents- Complainants.

 

 

CORAM:             Hon’ble Mr. Justice Nawab Singh, President.

                             Shri B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member.

                             Shri Diwan Singh Chauhan, Member   

 

Argued by:          Sh. Rohit Goswami, Advocate for the appellant.

                             Sh. Deepender Ahlawat, Advocate for the respondents.

                                               

                                                   O R D E R

 

B.M. BEDI, JUDICIAL MEMBER

 

The Manager, Reliance Life Insurance Company-opposite party is in appeal against the order dated 29.10.2015 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Jhajjar (in short, ‘District Forum’) vide which the complaint was allowed and opposite party was directed to pay insured amount of policies in question with all benefits alongwith interest at the rate of 9% p.a. from the date of death of life assured i.e. 19.08.2012 till its realisation and Rs.5500/- as litigation expenses.

2.      Sanjeev and Sumitra-complainants filed complaint with allegations that Rajender Singh purchased two Life Insurance Policies with assured sum of Rs.2,00,000/- and Rs.6,00,000/- on 08.08.2011 and 16.08.2011 respectively and died on 19.08.2012.  Complainants being nominee lodged the claim which was not paid. Complainants filed complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

3.      Notice being issued to the opposite party, none appeared on its behalf.  The complaint was allowed ex-parte.

4.      Opposite party has come up in appeal.

5.      Indisputably, the impugned order was passed ex-parte.  One of the plea raised by the learned counsel for appellant is that appellant had shifted the office and has intimated same to IRDA as per the guidelines of IRDA.  Since the appellant was proceeded ex-parte before the District Forum, as such could not contest the complaint on merits, therefore, it would be in the interest of justice to grant an opportunity to the appellant to contest the complaint on merits.  Thus, the appeal is accepted and the impugned order is set aside.  The appellant is granted opportunity to join the proceedings.  The parties shall be entitled to lead evidence etcetera. The case is remitted to the District Forum with the directions to decide the complaint expeditiously and under intimation to this Commission.

6.      The parties are directed to appear before the District Forum on 06.01.2017.

7.      Copy of this order be sent to the District Forum.

8.      The statutory amount of Rs.25000/- deposited at the time of filing the appeal be refunded to the appellant against proper receipt and identification in accordance with rules, after the expiry of period of appeal/revision, if any.

 

Announced 02.12.206 DK

(Diwan Singh Chauhan) Member

(B.M. Bedi) Judicial Member

(Nawab Singh) President