Madhya Pradesh

StateCommission

FA/12/93

RAMDULARE KUSHWAHA - Complainant(s)

Versus

SCHOOL SHIKSHA VIBHAG - Opp.Party(s)

SH. U. DAYAL

03 Mar 2021

ORDER

M. P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BHOPAL

PLOT NO.76, ARERA HILLS, BHOPAL

                              

FIRST APPEAL NO.93 OF 2012

(Arising out of order dated 23.12.2011 passed in C.C.No.206/2010 by District Commission, Satna)

 

 

RAMDULARE KUSHWAHA.                                                                         …          APPELLANT.

 

Versus

                  

SCHOOL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT THROUGH

DISTRICT EDUCATION OFFICER, SATNA & ORS.                                    …         RESPONDENTS

 

BEFORE:

 

                  HON’BLE DR. (MRS) MONIKA MALIK      :      PRESIDING MEMBER

                  HON’BLE SHRI S. S. BANSAL                  :      MEMBER   

 

                                      O R D E R

03.03.2021

 

           Shri Umeshwar Dayal, learned counsel for the appellant.

             None for the respondent no.1 and 2.

             Shri Ravindra Tiwari, learned counsel for the respondent no.3.

 

As per Dr. Monika Malik :                       

                        This appeal, by the complainant/appellant is directed against the order dated 23.12.2011 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Satna (for short ‘District Commission’) in C.C.No.206/2010 whereby the complainant’s complaint has been partly allowed.

2.                Briefly put, facts of the case as narrated by the complainant are that the complainant’s daughter Ku. Rekha Kushwaha (hereinafter referred to as deceased-insured) who was a student of Class-VIII, was insured under the Student Safety Insurance Policy floated by the opposite party no.3/respondent no.3 insurance company.  Requisite premium in this regard was taken by the opposite party no.1 and 2 from him. The deceased-insured died on 19.07.2009 due to electric shock, regarding which the complainant had timely intimated the

-2-

opposite party no.1 and 2. The complainant was not given sum insured of Rs.50,100/- by the opposite parties, despite timely intimation in this regard and therefore he filed a complaint before the District Commission seeking relief.

3.                The District Commission partly allowed the complaint filed by the complainant and directed the opposite party no.1 and 2 to pay Rs.10,000/- as compensation along with Rs.1000/- as costs to the complainant, on account of deficiency in service owing to delay in forwarding of insurance claim on their part.

4.                Heard.

5.                Learned counsel for the appellant argued that the District Commission has erroneously passed the impugned order directing the opposite party no.1 and 2 to pay Rs.10,000/- as compensation.  He argued that the deceased-insured was insured under the insurance scheme floated by the opposite party no.3-insurance company, for a sum assured of Rs.50,100/-.  There was no fault regarding intimation of death to the opposite parties on part of the complainant and therefore he deserves the entire insured amount of Rs.50,100/- and not just compensation of Rs.10,000/-, as has been awarded by the District Commission.

6.                Learned counsel for the respondent no.3/opposite party no.3-insurance company argued that the insurance company was intimating regarding death claim of the deceased-insured after inordinate delay. They are not liable in the instant matter since they were not timely intimated.

7.                After going through the impugned order as also the record of the District Commission and the pleadings made by the complainant in the complaint

-3-

case, we find that undoubtedly the complainant approached the District Commission seeking relief regarding sum insured of Rs.50,100/- along with compensation on account of death of his deceased daughter (who was insured under the aforesaid scheme).   Evidence available in the record also suggests that there has been no fault on part of the complainant in intimating the opposite parties, regarding death of his deceased daughter. Requisite premium was obtained by the opposite parties and the deceased-insured was admittedly insured under the Student Safety Insurance Policy. 

7.                When the complainant had timely intimated regarding untimely and unfortunately death of his deceased daughter and had completed the formalities as directed and instructed by the opposite parties, he ought to have been given sum insured regarding which he had approached the District Commission. Therefore, the impugned order containing directions regarding payment of compensation on account of deficiency in service only is not sustainable, when the complainant is entitled for sum insured.   

8.                In the light of the aforesaid, the case is remanded back to the District Commission for deciding it afresh.  It is expected that a decision be passed by the District Commission regarding payment of sum assured to the complainant/appellant on the basis of the documents and evidence including ‘Memo of Understanding’ which is already there in the record of the District Commission.

 

 

-4-

8.                Parties are directed to appear before the District Commission on 05.04.2021. The District Commission shall proceed further in the matter in accordance with law, after issuing notice to the opposite party no1 & 2.

9.                Record be sent at the earliest to the District Commission. It is expected from the District Commission to decide the case as expeditiously as possible but not later than 3 months.

10.               We make it clear that observations made hereinabove shall not come in way of the District Commission, while deciding the matter.

11.               With the aforesaid directions, this appeal stands dispose of with no order as to costs.

 

                      (Dr. Monika Malik)                         (S. S. Bansal)           

                       Presiding Member                            Member