Per Shri Narendra Kawde, Hon’ble Member This appeal is directed against the order dated 31/08/2004 in consumer complaint No.334/2002 (Smt.Jayashri Satish Barwade V/s. The Divisional Manager, New India Assurance Co. Ltd. & Anr.) passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Satara (‘District Forum’ in short). The consumer complaint filed by respondent/complainant as there was abnormal delay in settling the death claim under the policy though all the requirements to settle the claim were complied with by the complainant. District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum decided the complaint partly in favour of the complainant with a direction to pay an amount of `2,00,000/- together with interest @ 14% p.a. with effect from 10/05/2002 and the costs of `2,500/-. 2. Aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned order, the appellant/org. opponent No.1/Insurance Company preferred this appeal on the ground that subject policy was not issued by them. It is contended that Memorandum of Understanding (M.O.U.) was executed with respondent No.2/org. opponent No.2, namely, M/s.Free India Assurance Services Pvt. Ltd., which was terminated on 01/03/1999 and case of cheating by respondent/org. opponent No.2 was under investigation as the subject policy was not issued by the appellant/org. opponent No.1. 3. This is an old matter placed on Board for hearing and disposal. On perusal of the record, it is seen that respondent/org. complainant has been continuously remaining absent. Advocate for appellant was present and therefore, case was heard ex-parte. 4. Admitted facts are that complainant’s husband Late Shri Satish Barwade subscribed to the Janata Personal Accident Insurance Policy issued by respondent No.2/org. opponent No.2 i.e. M/s.Free India Assurance Services Pvt. Ltd. with whom appellant/org. opponent No.1 entered into M.O.U. apparently to carry on business of insurance and said M.O.U. was terminated on 1st March 1999. It is an admitted fact by the appellant/opponent No.1 that the subject policy issued in favour of complainant’s husband was issued under the name and with rubber stamp of the appellant/opponent No.1. The subject policy was issued on 25/04/1999 and the complainant’s husband died on 23/11/2001 in a motor accident while subject policy was in force i.e. for the period 25/04/1999 to 24/04/2003. 5. We heard Advocate Mr.R.P. Bafna for the appellant. We have perused the record. Though there is denial by the appellant of having issued disputed policy, they have made a statement during the course of hearing on 07/02/2005 affirming their earlier stand recorded on 07/10/2004 that “Mr.Bafna states that this appeal is filed for limited point of rate of interest and cost only and that appellants are ready for compliance of the award as far as principal claim is concerned.” There is no statement to prove that respondent No.2/opponent No.2 was not authorized to issue policy on behalf of appellant. Policy document is not on record, so also the appropriate explanation for not settling the claim is available on record. However, it is stated in the written version supported by the affidavit stating that respondent No.2/opponent No.2 deceived appellant/opponent No.1 and therefore, case of cheating was filed and was under investigation by the Central Bureau of Investigation. There is no record to show that after termination of M.O.U. with effect from 01/03/1999 respondent No.2/opponent No.2 was prohibited to operate and issue policies on behalf of appellant/opponent No.1 nor there is any record to show that such knowledge was given to the public by way of advertisement or through print-media or otherwise. The policy in question was issued on 25/04/1999 to cover the period upto 24/04/2003 i.e. immediately after alleged termination of M.O.U. with effect from 01/03/1999. During the course of hearing Learned Advocate for the appellant did not mention nor report the progress of inquiry into the case of cheating. 6. We need not go into the details of the status of inquiry into the case of cheating as apparently, respondent No.2/opponent No.2 was operating for and on behalf of appellant/opponent No.1 on the strength of M.O.U. executed between them. There is a statement as narrated (supra) that the appellant/Insurance Company has filed this appeal only on the limited point of interest and cost and they are ready to comply the award as far as principal amount is concerned. We therefore, need not go into much detail of this matter. Claim papers were accepted and even payment voucher was sent by the appellant/Insurance Company to the complainant, however, without effecting actual payment payable under the insurance policy. The order under appeal is dated 31/08/2004 and this appeal is now being disposed off in the year 2012. Thus, the benefits under the policy are delayed for almost eight years. Therefore, it will be just and proper to maintain the impugned order as it is in the interest of justice. 7. In view of the above, we find that there is no merit in the appeal even on the limited point as stated above. The impugned order is appropriate directing to pay principal claim amount of `2 Lakhs with interest @ 14% p.a. and costs of `2,500/- for this litigation. Therefore, the impugned order cannot be faulted with and we cannot take a different view than what has already been taken by the District Forum. We hold accordingly and pass the following order :- -: ORDER :- 1. Appeal stands dismissed. 2. No order as to costs. 3. Copies of the order be furnished to the parties. Pronounced Dated 19th June 2012. | 
