Haryana

StateCommission

A/890/2016

SAHARA INDIA PARIVAR - Complainant(s)

Versus

SHYAMWATI - Opp.Party(s)

D.K.SINGAL

09 Apr 2018

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, HARYANA, PANCHKULA   

                                                 

                                                First Appeal No.           890 of 2016

                                                Date of the Institution: 27.09.2016

                                                Date of Decision:         09.04.2018

 

1.      Sahara India Pariwar, Sahara India Bhawan-I, Kapurthala Complex, Lucknow-226024 (U.P.), through its Commanding Officer/Authorized Representative.

 

2.      Sahara India Pariwar, Near LIC Office, Palwal, District Palwal (Haryana).

 

…..Appellants-Opposite Parties

 

VERSUS

 

Smt. Shyamwati widow of late Gopal Dass, Aged 62 years son of Shri Gyasi Ram, resident of Village Punhana, Mewat.

 

….. Respondent-Complainant

 

 

CORAM:   Mr. R.K. Bishnoi, Judicial Member.

                   Mrs. Urvashi Agnihotri, Member.

                  

                                     

Present:-    Shri D.K. Singal, Advocate for appellants.

                   Shri R.K. Narang, Advocate for respondent.

 

                                                O R D E R

 

R.K. Bishnoi, Judicial Member

 

          As per complainant her husband Gopal Dass purchased insurance policy from opposite party (in short ‘OP’) No.2 on 13.08.1998 having maturity period of 10 years. On 31.05.2007 he died natural death and thereafter she applied for death help, but, the same was not allowed.

2.      In reply it was alleged by OPs that she did not complete all the formalities to get the benefit and complaint was hopelessly time barred. She did not file an application under Section 24A of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 to condone delay. Gopal Dass died in the year 2007, whereas, previous complaint was filed in the year 2009 and that was also time barred. She did not produce any evidence that at the time of death he was less than 60 years. He was suffering from serious ailment at the time of obtaining insurance policy, but, concealed this fact.   

3.      After hearing both the parties, learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Palwal (In short “District Forum”) allowed the complaint vide impugned order dated 11.08.2016 and directed as under:-

“(i)     To pay a sum of Rs.12,00,000/- in 120 equate installments of Rs.10,000/- per month from the date of this order after having personal guaranteed/surety from complainant for repay and of loan. The repayment of loan will start after one month of receiving last and final installment i.e. 120^th installment of Death Help Loan. The Death Help Loan will be free of interest and if the complainant makes default in repayment of three installments in continuously, she will be liable for payment of interest prevailing at that particular juncture and time as per guidelines of the RBI OR opposite parties are at liberty to pay Rs.12,00,000/- in lump sum within 30 days from the date of the receipt of the copy of order and complainant will be liable to repay in installment of Rs.10,000/- per month without interest after 12 months of disbursement of Death Help Loan.

(ii)      To pay compensation for harassment, financial loss, mental agony, loss of precious time to the tune of Rs.40,000/- to the complainant.

(iii)     To pay litigation expenses to the tune of Rs.5500/-.

All the above directions are to be complied within 45 days from the receipt of the copy of this order failing which the opposite parties will be further burdened to the tune of Rs.3,00,000/- (Three Lakh) as this compensation will be in addition to the above mentioned awarded amount.”

 

4.      Feeling aggrieved therefrom, OPs have preferred this appeal.

5.      Arguments heard. File perused.

6       Learned counsel for the appellants vehemently argued that as per discharge ticket (Annexure-3) issued by Life Line Hospital, Alwar, Gopal Dass was 60 years old on the date of death. Copy of ration card (Annexure-H) is showing his age as 50 years. Copy of election commission of India identity card (Annexure-I) is showing his age as 46 years in the year 1994. In copy of voter list (Annexure-J) his age was 51 in the year 1999, whereas, at the time of obtaining insurance policy, he told his age as 45 years, as mentioned in application form (Annexure-1). When there is contradiction in documents regarding age, it cannot be presumed that he was less than 60 years old at the time of his death. He died on 31.05.2007, whereas, the initial complaint was filed in the month of September, 2009 i.e. beyond 02 years. Though she withdrew that complaint on 31.08.2015 and benefit of limitation can be claimed qua the period consumed during the pendency of that complaint and not otherwise. He was suffering from serious ailment at the time of obtaining insurance cover, but, concealed this fact. So complainant was not entitled for any help as per condition No.10 of Annexure-1. He placed reliance upon Life Insurance Corporation of India Versus Braham Singh, I (2016) CPJ 54 (NC); Monica Jain Versus Life Insurance Corporation of India, IV (2015) CPJ 16 (NC); Life Insurance Corporation of India & Ors. Versus Ramamani Patra & Anr., IV (2015) CPJ 259 (NC); Dilraj Singh (Mrs.) Versus Life Insurance Corporation of India & Anr., IV (2015) CPJ 665 (NC); Gurmeet Kaur @ Meeto & Anr. Verus Life Insurance Corporation of India, III (2015) CPJ 426 (NC); M. Obaidur Rahman Versus National Insurance Co. Ltd., III (2015) CPJ 474 (NC) and ICICI Bank Ltd. Versus Pushpa Chandran & Ors., I (2015) CPJ 62 (NC).

7.      This argument is devoid of any force. If we calculate the age of Gopal Dass as per Annexures H, I and J, it was less than 60 years. If there is little bit difference in age in these documents, it does not mean that he was more than 60 years at the time of his death. When insurance policy was obtained, he told his age to be 45 years and it was duty of the OPs to get the same verified. When they admitted that date to be correct, it cannot be presumed that version of complainant is false. Even otherwise benefit of doubt is to be given to the consumer and not the service provider. As per complainant she applied for compensation in the year 2007, but, OPs did not adjudicate upon the same. Even written notice was sent, but, to no avail. Ultimately her claim was declined in the year 2008 and that is why she filed complaint in the month of September, 2009. Cause of action accrued to the complainant when OPs refused to adjudicate upon her right which is clear from the perusal of notice dated 18.08.2008 (Annexure-N) sent by her counsel. So it cannot be presumed that the complaint was time barred.  OPs have also failed to show that DLA was suffering from any ailment at the time of obtaining insurance cover and concealed the same. Without any evidence, presumption cannot be drawn to this effect. Keeping in view all these facts and circumstances, right of complainant cannot be discarded. But any how impugned order dated 11.08.2016 required modification about compensation awarded to the tune of Rs.3,00,000/- for not complying the same. Instead of this amount, learned District Forum should have awarded interest from the date of filing of complaint. Appellants cannot derive any benefit from cited case laws because view expressed therein is based on altogether different facts.

8.      As a sequel to above discussion, impugned order dated 11.08.2016 is modified to this extent that if the same is not complied within the period mentioned therein then OPs will be liable to pay interest @ 9% per annum on the benefits granted by learned District Forum in Clause A from the date of filing of complaint. Complainant will be entitled for the remaining relief as directed by learned District Forum. The appeal is disposed of with this modification.

9.      The statutory amount of Rs.25,000/- deposited at the time of filing the appeal be refunded to the complainant against proper receipt and identification in accordance with rules.  

 

 

Announced 09.04.2018

(Urvashi Agnihotri) Member Addl. Bench

(R.K. Bishnoi) Judicial Member Addl. Bench

D.R.