Rajasthan

StateCommission

A/742/2015

Sahara India Commercial Corporation - Complainant(s)

Versus

Smt. Laxmi Devi Jain W/o Nirmal Kumar Jain - Opp.Party(s)

Adarah Verama

05 May 2016

ORDER

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

 

FIRST APPEAL NO: 742/2015

 

Sahara India Commercial Corporation,Command Office, Sahara India Bhawan, 1 Kapurthala Complex, Lucknow & ors.

Vs.

Smt.Lakshmi Devi Jain Bardia w/o Nirmal Kumar Jain r/o Bardia Niketan, Ghee walon ka Rasta, Johari Bazar, Jaipur. & ors.

 

Date of Order 5.5.2016

 

Before:

Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Nisha Gupta- President

Hon'ble Mr.K.K.Bagri-Member

Mrs. Meena Mehta -Member

 

Mr. Alok Fatehpuria counsel for the appellants

Mr.Dinesh Kala counsel for the respondent

 

BY THE STATE COMMISSION ( PER HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE NISHA GUPTA,PRESIDENT):

2

 

This appeal has been filed against the judgment of the District Forum, Jaipur 3^rd dated 13.5.2015 whereby the liability of Rs. 1,75,000/- is fastened on the appellants.

 

The facts of the case are that the son of the complainant has taken an insurance policy from the appellants under Sahara Rajat Silver Year Labh Yojna and it was renewed from time to time. On 12.4.2008 son of the complainant Nishchal Jain died an accidental death and claim was presented which was approved only for Rs. 25,000/- on the ground that insurance company is not liable to cover the risk as regard to point no. II of the table as there is no agreement as regard to point no. II. The Forum below has also held so and hence liability of remaining Rs. 1,75,000/- was fastened on the appellants. Hence, this appeal.

 

Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned judgment as well as original record of the case.

 

The contention of the appellant is that it is not in dispute that the policy was taken by the deceased but the present appellants are not responsible to pay the amount as vide letter dated 8.2.2005 it has been communicated to the insurance

3

 

company by the appellants that in case accidental death occurs after one year of opening of the account, liability would be as per table no. II.

 

The contention of the insurance company is that vide letter dated 7.3.2005 they have denied their liability and specifically stated that insurance is covered only for point no. I and they have already paid Rs. 25,000/- as per their liability in table no. I but the appellants has further relied upon the letter dated 27.9.2005 written by the insurance company to the appellants in which they have accepted their liability as per table no. II and on the strength of the letter dated 27.9.2005 the contention of the appellants is that the liability should be fastened on the insurance company.

 

The contention of the insurance company is that this letter was never submitted before the Forum below and not been exhibited hence, cannot be relied but this contention has no force as this letter was submitted before the Forum below. It is true that it has not been exhibited but the insurance company has not came with a case that the letter is forged one. Hence, on strength of letter dated 27.9.2005 it can safely be concluded that insurance company is liable as per table no. II which provides

4

 

that if death occurs after four years of opening of the account in Rajat Yojna the insurance company would be liable for Rs. 2 lakhs. Hence, the appeal is allowed to the extent that the insurance company respondent no.3 in the original complaint is liable to pay Rs. 1,75,000/- to the complainant and the findings of the Forum below as regard to exoneration of respondent no.3 are liable to be set aside. On above term the appeal is allowed.

 

 

(Meena Mehta) (K.K.Bagri) (Nisha Gupta)

Member Member President

 

 

nm