Rajasthan

StateCommission

A/981/2017

Future Generali India Insurance Company Limited through its Authorized Signatory Sunita Sharma - Complainant(s)

Versus

Tej Singh Chauhan s/o Vikram Singh - Opp.Party(s)

Ajay Raj Tantia

10 May 2018

ORDER

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

 

 

FIRST APPEAL NO: 981/2017

 

Future Generali India Insurance Co. Ltd. 2^nd floor, Royal World, Opp. City Centre, Sansar Chander Road, Jaipur.

Vs.

Tejsingh Chauhan s/o late Vikram Singh Chauhan r/o Plot No. 76 Parmanand Vatika, Govindpura, Kalwar Road, Jaipur & ors.

 

FIRST APPEAL NO: 1119/2017

 

AU Small Finance Bank Ltd. 19-A, Dhuleshwar Garden, Ajmer Road, Jaipur.

vS.

Future Generali India Insurance Co. Ltd. 2^nd floor, Royal World, Opp. City Centre, Sansar Chander Road, Jaipur & ors.

 

Date of Order 10.5.2018

 

2

 

Before:

Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Nisha Gupta- President

 

Mr. Ajayraj Tantia counsel for Future Generali Insurance Co.

Mr. Vimal Singh counsel for the complainant Tejsingh

Mr. Amit Yadav counsel for AU Small Finance Bank

 

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

 

Both these appeals have been filed against the single order hence, are decided by this common order.

 

Appeal No. 1119/2017 is filed with delay of 39 days. Matter has come upon application u/s 5 of the Limitation Act. The contention of the appellant is that earlier the company was non-banking finance company. Thereafter it was given status of small finance company for which necessary arrangements were to be made hence, the appeal could not be filed in time. Respondent has objected but looking at the facts mentioned in the application delay is condoned.

 

3

 

The contention of the appellant is that deceased has not died an accidental death hence, claim is not payable.

 

Per contra the contention of the complainant by way of written submission is that deceased died an accidental death which is proved from the diagnosis papers, affidavit of witnesses etc and the claim has rightly been allowed.

 

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

 

There is no dispute about the fact that the deceased was insured and he died on 28.1.2015. The contention of the consumer is that he died an accidental death as he has fallen from staircase. The contention pleaded in the complaint is that on 27.1.2015 late Vikram Singh fall down from the staircase and became unconscious. He was taken to Sardarmal Khandaka Memorial Hospital . Ex. 4 OPD prescription of Khandaka Hospital is submitted where the only complaint is regarding headache and vomiting since morning. Nothing has been stated in Ex. 4 that patient fall down from the staircase. Further he was taken to SMS Hospital, Jaipur but in the

4

 

prescription of SMS Hospital also there is no mention of the fact that the patient fall down from the staircase. Hence, there is no iota of evidence to support this contention that death of the insured was accidental. Affidavit of Baldev Samodia and Budh Singh Naruka has submitted. Baldev Samodia has stated only this much that he saw Mr.Chauhan in unconscious state and Budh Singh Naruka has not seen the occurrence. He has received only the information regarding the incident. Hence, both these witnesses could not prove the fact that death was accidental.

 

The contention of the consumer in the written submission is that it is not necessary to get the postmortem report. There is no dispute about this preposition. If fact of accident could be proved by other evidence, the postmortem report is not a necessary document but here in the present case there is no evidence to the effect that death was accidental . It may also be noted that inspite of fall insured has not suffered any injury. Reliance has rightly been placed on I (2016) CPJ 699 (NC) United India Insurance Co. Vs. Canara Bank and II (2014) CPJ 388 (NC) United India Insurance Co. Vs. P.M.Nagesh Nayak where natural death has been given colour

5

 

of accidental death which is also the situation here. Hence, in view of the above claim is not sustainable.

 

The other contention of the appellant is that the complaint is filed by Tejsingh the son of the deceased who is not the nominee in the policy and claim has been filed by the wife of the deceased hence, complaint is not maintainable as it has not been submitted by proper person.

 

Ex. 3 submitted by the complainant himself has been written by Nirmal Kanwar wife of the deceased. Hence, when Nirmal Kanwar wife of the deceased is alive the complaint on behalf of son only is not maintainable.

 

In view of the above, both the appeals are allowed and the order of the Forum below dated 5.7.2017 is set aside.

 

(Nisha Gupta) President

nm