Orissa

Rayagada

CC/114/2018

Smt. Saraswati Pattnayak - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Branch Manager LIC of India - Opp.Party(s)

Sri R Senapati

01 Mar 2023

ORDER

-

+DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION RAYAGADA, ODISHA.

 

Date of Institution: 23.08.2018

     Date of Final Hearing: 01.03.2023

         Date of  Pronouncement: 01.03.2023

 

CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO. 114 / 2018

Smt. Saraswati Patnaik,

At/Po: Ambadola, Dist: Rayagada..

(Through Self for the Complainant)                           …Complainant

Versus

1.The  Branch Manager,

LIC  of India, Rayagada Branch

Po/Dist: Rayagada.

(Sri  K.Ch.G.S.Kumandan, Advocate  for the O.P. No.1).

 

2.The Inspector General of Police,

Govt. Raialway Police, Chennai, Tamilnadu.

.(None  for the O.P. No.2).

3.The Inspector-In-Charge, Govt. Railway

Police (GRP), Egmore, Chennai- 600008..

(None  for the  O.P No.3)                                           …Opposite Parties

 

Present:          1. Sri Rajendra Kumar Panda, President.

           2. Sri Satish Kumar Panigrahi, Member.

ORDER

Sri  Rajendra  Kumar  Panda, President.

Brief facts of the case:-

Case in hand is the allegation of  deficiency in service and unfair trade practice by the O.Ps  for  non payment of  death claim bearing policy No.57390438  which  the complainant sought  redressal.

On being noticed the O.P No.1  appeared before this commission through their learned counsel  and filed  written version.

The O.P. No.2 & 3  not appeared  before this Commission. Hence the O.P No. 2 & 3 were set exparte.

During the course of  hearing  the complainant is  absent on repeated call though notices has been duly served upon him.

On perusal of the written version  filed by the  O.P. No.1 it is revealed that after receipt  of  notice the  O.P.No.1 has settled the death claim against the policy No. 573901446 belongs to  Gourishankar Pattnaik and an amount of  Rs.2,71,400/- has been paid to the nominee Smt. Saraswati Pattnaik (Complainant) on Dated. 27.05.2019 through NEFT – S.B account  No. 35058579308  of  SBI,  Ambadola Branch..

Against policy No.573901438  the complainant failed to produce any documents in support of her claim.  When the pleading of  the complainant in support of his claim have been denied by the  O.P. the complainant is duty bound   to substantiate her claim by producing relevant documents there for, but she has failed to do so.  On the basis of mere pleadings of the complainant, without any supporting  evidence, no positive finding can be recorded in regard to her claim. Hence, we are constrained to hold that the petition made by the complainant  is  devoid of any merit.

The complainant failed to perform his obligatory  duty to remain present  and adduce evidence.

 In the result this commission dismiss the  complaint for default U/S- 38(3)© of the C.P.Act,2019

Miscellaneous  order if any  delivered by this  commission  relating to this case  stands vacated. 

 A copy of this order be provided to all the parties at  free of cost as mandated by the Consumer Protection Act,  2019 or they may download same from the confonet.nic.in to treat the same as if copy of order received from this Commission.

The judgment be uploaded forthwith on the website of the Commission for the perusal of the parties.

File be consigned to the record room along with a copy of this Judgment.

  

 (S. K. PANIGRAHI)                                                        (R. K. PANDA)

MEMBER                                                                 PRESIDENT

 

                                                                                        PRONOUNCED ON 01.03.2023