Chhattisgarh State Power Holding Company Ltd. has filed these revision petitions against the order dated 12.11.09 passed by the Chhattisgarh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Raipur (in short, ‘the State Commission’) in appeal nos. 316 and 388 of 2008. By the impugned orders, the State Commission has remitted back the complaints to the District Forum with a direction to permit
..2.. the complainant/petitioner to amend the complaints suitably, so as to implead the legal heirs of the deceased insured who can be joined as complainants and further directed to the District Forum to decide the complaints afresh. 2. We have heard Mr. R.K. Bhawnani, learned counsel for the petitioner and considered his submissions. He seeks to assail the impugned orders primarily on the ground that it was the petitioner company who entered into an insurance contract with the respondent insurance company for and on behalf of its employees and had paid the due premium with a clear stipulation that the Group Personal Accident Insurance Policy was for the benefit of its employees and their nominees and they have to be indemnified in case of injury or death while in service. In the present cases, it was not disputed that the amount of premium of Rs.11,40,554/- was paid by the petitioner to the insurance company in respect of said Group Personal Accident Insurance Policy and two of its employees as mentioned in the orders, died and their nominees became entitled for the benefits under the policy. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that after the death of two employees, the petitioner has already paid
..3.. the benefits arising out of the said Group Personal Accident Insurance Policy to the nominees/legal heirs of the deceased insured and, therefore, the petitioner company was entitled to receive the claim under the policy. He further submits that in above circumstances the petitioner company itself was entitled to file the complaints which it had filed even without joining the legal heirs/beneficiaries of the deceased insured. However, no proof has been filed by the petitioner regarding making of any payment under the insurance policy to the beneficiaries of the deceased insured by the petitioner. Strictly speaking, going by the entirety of the facts and circumstances of these cases and that the contract of insurance was entered into between the petitioner and the respondent insurance company, it was not necessary to implead the nominees/beneficiaries of the deceased employees. However, it appears that in order to avoid any controversy between the petitioner and the beneficiaries of the deceased employees and with the intention that the amount of insurance reached the right hands, the State Commission has directed the petitioner to implead the legal heirs of the deceased employees. Though we do not agree with the view
..4.. expressed by the State Commission but since in our opinion no harm would be caused if the nominees/beneficiaries of the deceased employees are also joined either as co-complainants or co-respondents with the insurance company so as to obviate any possible objection, we would not like to interfere with the said finding of the State Commission. With these observations, the revision petitions are disposed of. We direct the District Forum to dispose of the complaints expeditiously and, in any case, not later than three months from the date of receipt of order. We make it clear that in case the petitioner company has already paid the amount due under the policy to the beneficiaries/nominees of the deceased employees, the petitioner company will alone be entitled to receive the amount from the respondent insurance company.
......................JR.C. JAINPRESIDING MEMBER
......................ANUPAM DASGUPTAMEMBER | |
