PER SHRI S.M.SHEMBOLE, HON’BLE PRESIDING MEMBER.
This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 24/12/1999 passed by the District Consumer Forum, Chandrapur in consumer Complaint No. 140/1999 partly allowing the complaint directing the opponent/appellant Nos. 1 to 3 to pay to the complainant/respondent amount of insurance Rs. 10,000/- with interest at the rate of 12% p.a. with effect from the year 1997. (For the sake of brevity the appellants hereinafter referred as “the opponents” and respondent as “the complainant”)
Brief facts giving rise to this appeal are that:-
1. Deceased Haridas Kashiram Raut who was the husband of complainant-Sukarabai was having ration card and ration card was in his name. The insurance scheme was sponsored by the Government of Maharashtra by virtue of which every ration card holder was supposed to pay Rs.1/- as yearly premium to obtain insurance policy. As per the insurance policy, in the event of accidental death of ration card holder i.e. insured, the insurance company required to pay insurance amount of Rs.10,000/- to the legal heirs of the ration card holder. As per the policy, deceased Haridas Kashiram Raut paid amount of premium to the opponents No.1 to 3 for the year 1995-96 and 96-97.
2. On 22/10/1997 insured-Haridas Kashiram Raut met with an accidental death by drowning in the lake at village Pendhari. There after on 05/01/1999 the complainant filed the claim with the opponent No. 4 insurance company through the opponent Nos. 1 to 3. However, her claim came to be repudiated by the opponent No.4-insurance company on the ground that the amount of insurance premium which was deposited by the opponent No.1 to 3 with it was for the year 1998 and not for the year 1996-1997. Therefore, the complainant filed the consumer complaint before the District Consumer Forum, Chandrapur.
3. Opponent Nos. 1 to 3 by their written version admitted the claim and submitted that they have received the amount of premium of insurance from the deceased and others and on 23/06/1998 they deposited by D.D. of Rs. 1274/- with the opponent No.4-insurance company.
4. By separate written version the opponent No.4-insurance company resisted the claim. It is not disputed that as per the government policy the deceased had paid the amount of premium for the year 1995-96 and 1996-97 through the ration card shop owner and the same amount was collected by the opponent No.1 and 2. But it is denied that on the date of death of the insured, the policy was in force. It is contended that the amount which was paid or deposited by the opponent No. 1 to3 on 25/06/19998 was pertaining to the amount of insurance premium collected for the year 1998 and not for the year 1997. It is submitted that it has rightly repudiated the claim. It is submitted to dismiss the complaint.
5. On hearing both the sides and considering the documents on record the District Consumer Forum, Chandrapur held that on the date of death of the insured the policy was in force as he had paid the amount of insurance premium with ration shop owners for the year 1997 and therefore, it is also held that the amount which was deposited by the opponent Nos.1 to 3 in the account of opponent No.4-insurance company on 25/06/1998 was pertaining to the amount of premium collected by the opponent for the year 1997 and therefore the complainant is entitled to get the amount of insurance. In keeping with this finding the District Consumer Forum has partly allowed the complaint directing the opponent Nos. 1 to 3 to pay insurance amount Rs. 10,000/- to the complainant with interest at the rate of 12% with effect from 1997.
6. Feeling aggrieved by the impugned judgment and order the opponent Nos. 1 to 3 have preferred this appeal.
7. We heard Mr. Lahbar, Ld. Counsel for the appellants and Mr. Jayant Raut who is a son of the complainant and also the authorized person of the complainant, perused the written notes of arguments submitted by Mr. Lahbar, Ld. Counsel for the appellants and also perused the copy of impugned judgment and order.
8. Almost all the facts except that whether the policy was in force on the date of death of the insured are admitted. It is submitted by Mr. Lahbar, Ld. Counsel for the appellants/opponents that the insurance policy was not in force when the insured died in the month of October,19997. It is submitted that the opponent No.4-insurance company has rightly rejected the insurance claim but we find no force in the submission of Mr. Lahbar, Ld. Counsel for the appellants/opponents. Because his arguments are being contrary to the written version of the appellants/opponents, cannot be sustained. On perusal of the copy of impugned judgment it reflects that by written version opponents/appellants No. 1 to 3 admitted the claim of complainant and it also reveals that the opponents/appellants 1 to 3 denied the contention of the opponent No.4-insurance company. According to Mr. Lahbar, Ld. Counsel for the opponents/appellants himself the amount of premium was collected by the fair price shop owner for the year 1995-1996 and 1996-1997 and accordingly it is specifically mentioned in the written notes of argument submitted by himself. Therefore, his submission that the amount which was deposited on 06/06/1998 was pertaining to the insurance premium for the year 1998, can not be sustained.
9. Any how it is obvious from the undisputed facts that the insurance policy was in force when the insured died in the month of October 1997. Therefore, though the amount of premium was deposited by the opponent Nos. 1 to 3 in the insurance company on 06/06/1997 or 25/06/1998 can not be considered to be the amount pertaining to the premiums collected in the year1998 only. Therefore, the District Consumer Forum has rightly partly allowed the complainant’s claim.
10. Moreover, when undisputedly the amount of premium was collected by the fair shop owner of the insured and same amount was deposited by the fair shop owner with the opponent No.3-Tahsildar and it that amount was retained by the opponent No.3-Tahsildar till the year 1998, it can not be said that the policy was not in force on the date of death of the insured. In such event there could be no fault on the part of the insured, therefore, the complainant can not be deprived from getting the insurance claim amount. Therefore, the District Consumer Forum has rightly held that opponent Nos. 1 to 3 are liable to pay compensation to the complainant.
11. However, though according to the opponents/ appellants No.1 to 3 the amount of insurance premium was deposited with the opponent No. 4 insurance company they are not liable to pay any amount to the complainant. But since, the same amount was not deposited in time, the opponents 1 to 3 themselves are liable for the same. However, they can recover the amount from the opponent No.4-insurance company and therefore, in our view the District Consumer Forum, Chandrapur has rightly directed to opponent Nos. 1 to 3 to pay an amount of insurance to the complainant. We find no glaring error or infirmity in the impugned judgment and order. Hence, no interference is warranted.
12 In the result the appeal is being devoid of any merit is liable to be dismissed.
Hence, the following order.
ORDER
1. The appeal is dismissed.
2. No order as to cost.
Dated:- 27/11/2012/
