NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSIONNEW DELHIREVISION PETITION NO. 3987 OF 2009
(Against the Order dated 25/06/2009 in Appeal No. 259/2009 of the State Commission Kerala)
1. M/S. BAJAJ ALLIANZ INSURANCE CO. LTD.1st Floor. Np.Tower Guruvayoor Road. Near Kerala Varma College Junction West Fort Tharissur Distt.
...........Petitioner(s)
Versus
1. SREE HARI (MINOR) & ANR.Thulamattom Nedurnudy P.O. alappuzha District Prepresented By. His Gurdian Next Friend Sri Somanathan2. SHIBU SHIBU BHAVANAM SREEMOOLAMVeliya Panchayat Velityaanad P.O. Kuttanadu Taluk. Alappuzha Distt.
...........Respondent(s)
BEFORE:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.S. GUPTA ,PRESIDING MEMBERHON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K. BATTA ,MEMBER
For the Petitioner :
NEMO
For the Respondent :
NEMO
Dated : 17 May 2010
ORDER
At the first call, counsel has appeared on behalf of respondent no.1 but the hearing was put off in order to secure the file of the District Forum from the Registry. Now no one is present on behalf of respondent no.1 Notice issued to respondent no.2 by registered post on 29.3.2010 has not been received back unserved. Since 30 days time from date of issue of notice has elapsed, the respondent no.2 will be deemed to have been served with notice. One of the grounds taken by the petitioner/opposite party no.1- Insurance Company is that it was not served with the notice in the complaint. In District Forums orders dated 10.3.2008 and 24.5.2008 the presence on behalf of the petitioner is recorded. On being confronted with these two orders, Shri Chugh states that he does not press the ground of non service of notice in complaint and the revision petition may be disposed of on another ground taken in revision petition. On merits, the complaint filed by respondent (minor) through his next friend was allowed by the District Forum by the order dated 26.9.2008 with direction to the petitioner/opposite party no.1 to pay amount of Rs.1,00,000/- with consequential benefits and interest to respondent no.1. Amount of Rs.2000/- by way of compensation and cost of Rs.1000/- was further allowed. Appeal against Forums order filed by the petitioner has been dismissed by the order under challenge by the State Commission. Copy of the policy alongwith its terms and conditions is at pages 31 to 47. Shri Chugh contends that under the policy respondent no.1 is entitled to the payment as per the schedule given therein. He is further entitled to monthly income of 1% of the sum assured till the maturity of the policy at the age of 21 or 24, as the case may be. Policy was for a sum of Rs.1 lac. As per the schedule, payments of Rs.20,000/- with bonus have to be made at the age of 18, of Rs.25,000/- at the age of 19, of Rs.25,000/- at the age of 20 and Rs.35,000/- at the age of 21 to respondent no.1. Under family income benefit, respondent no.1 is also entitled to monthly income of Rs.1000/- till the maturity of the policy, i.e.. at the age of 21 in this case. In view of this condition of policy, the District Forum could not have passed the order for lump sum payment of amount of Rs.1 lac to respondent no.1. Forums order as affirmed by the State Commission , thus, deserves to be modified to the above extent. Two demand drafts of Rs.40,000/- and Rs.5,000/- filed by Shri Chugh be taken on record. Draft of Rs.5000/- is towards expenses of proceedings. Shri Chugh states that said amount of Rs.40000/- covers the monthly benefit amount upto May, 2010. Accordingly, the order of District Forum as affirmed by State Commission while accepting revision petition is modified. The petitioner will pay monthly benefit @ Rs.1000/- per month to respondent no.1 upto the maturity date of the policy i.e. age of 21 years. Petitioner will further pay amounts of Rs.20,000/- with bonus at the age of 18, Rs.25,000/- at the age of 19, Rs.25,000/- at the age of 20 and Rs.35,000/- at the age of 21 to respondent no.1. Both the demand drafts which are in the name of Registrar of this Commission will be deposited in the Registry send the amounts thereof to respondent no.1 through T.K. Somanathan, next friend of respondent no.1 directly by registered post. No order as to cost.
......................JK.S. GUPTAPRESIDING MEMBER ......................JR.K. BATTAMEMBER
Consumer Court Lawyer
Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.
