Rajasthan

StateCommission

FA/692/2014

National Insurance Company Ltd. - Complainant(s)

Versus

Smt. Usha Sharma w/o Shambhu Naryan Sharma - Opp.Party(s)

Rishipal Agarwal

08 Oct 2015

ORDER

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

 

FIRST APPEAL NO: 692 /2014

 

National Insurance CompanyLtd.,Divisional Office IV,47 jeevan Bhawan, Hazratganj, Lucknow having its RO at Jeevan Nidhi, 2^nd floor,Ambedkar Circle,Bhawani Singh Road., Jaipur.

 

Vs.

 

Smt.Usha Sharma w/o Late Shambhu Narayan Sharma 5046 Beesalpur colony, Devli Distt. Tonk & ors.

 

Date of Order 8.10.2015

Before:

Hon'ble Mr.Vinay Kumar Chawla-Presiding Member

Mr.Liyakat Ali- Member

Mr. Kailash Soyal -Member

 

Mr. Rishipal Agarwal counsel for the appellant (on record)

Mr.Jugal Bhardwaj counsel for the respondent no.1

Mr.Alok Fatehpuria counsel for respondents no. 2 to 4

 

2

 

BY THE STATE COMMISSION

 

This appeal has been filed against the judgment of learned DCF Tonk dated 7.5.2014 by which the complaint was allowed.

 

Brief facts giving rise to this appeal are that Sahara India Commercial Corporation had taken a personal accident insurance from opposite party no.4 for its investors who had invested in Sahara Rajat Yojna. The complainant's husband was member of this scheme and had opted for option “C”. He became member on 25.7.2003. The husband of the complainant died in a road accident on 12.6.2008. The complainant lodged a claim with the opposite parties and the National Insurance Company paid him a sum of Rs.50,000/-. This complaint was filed for deficiency on the ground that as per rules the complainant was entitled for Rs.2 lakhs. The Sahara India in their reply stated that they were only facilitators and the liability of the claim was on the insurance company and the insurance company submitted before the learned DCF that the complainant had accepted a sum of Rs.50,000/- as full and final settlement. The learned DCF rejected the submission of the opposite parties and ordered

3

 

that balance sum of Rs.1,50,000/- be paid to the complainant alongwith interest.

 

We have heard the counsel for the parties and have perused the record. As per the table given for compensation in case of death in accident, it is clear that if the death occurs after four years but before ten years of the date when the investor had become member of this scheme under option 'C' , his legal representatives were entitled for Rs. 2 lakhs. We do not understand how the complainant was paid only Rs. 50,000/- while the date of death was not disputed by the opposite parties. We find no reason to interfere with the order passed by the learned DCF Tonk and the appeal deserves to be dismissed.

 

(Kailash Soyal) (Liyakat Ali) (Vinay Kumar Chawla)

Member Member Presiding Member

 

 

nm