Rajasthan

StateCommission

A/1154/2017

AVIVA Life Insurance Company India Ltd. - Complainant(s)

Versus

Vahid Ali S/o. Shri Hazi Iqbal Ahmad - Opp.Party(s)

Prakash Sharma

12 Mar 2018

ORDER

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

 

 

FIRST APPEAL NO: 1154/2017

 

Aviva Life Insurance Co. India Ltd. regd.office 2^nd floor, Prakash Deep Building-7, Tolstoy Marg, New Delhi & ors.

Vs.

Vahid Ali s/o Hazi Iqbal Ahmed r/o Near Bade Peer Dargaha, Delhi Darwaza M Road, Nagaur.

 

Date of Order 12.3.2018

 

Before:

Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Nisha Gupta- President

 

Mr. Prakash Sharma counsel for the appellants

Mr.Shiv Vyas counsel for the respondents

 

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

 

This appeal is filed against the order passed by the

2

 

District Forum, Nagaur dated 15.6.2017 whereby the claim is allowed against the appellant.

 

The contention of the appellant is that the deceased was not having any income. She was dependent on her husband but material facts have been suppressed hence, the claim should have been dismissed.

 

Per contra the contention of the respondent is that the claim has rightly been allowed. No interference is needed.

 

The matter has come upon application u/s 5 of the Limitation Act as the appeal is filed with delay of 74 days.

 

The contention of the appellant is that he could receive the certified copy from the local counsel only on 27.7.2017. Thereafter senior management team was consulted. New counsel was appointed. His opinion was also sought and appeal was filed. Affidavit of Prakash C Sharma, advocate has also been submitted.

 

The perusal of the impugned order goes to show that the

3

 

order was passed in presence of the counsel for the appellant on 15.6.2017 and even the copy was received by the appellant on 21.6.2017 which is evident from the endorsement on the certified copy. Hence, the contention of the appellant that he could receive the copy on 27.7.2017 is totally false.

 

The contention of the appellant is that local counsel has sent the copy on 27.7.2017. Be that may be the case no reason has been assigned for delay of more than one month in sending the copy by the local counsel and further more only vague avernment has been made that senior management team was consulted or new advocate was appointed. Hence, in view of the above no just or reasonable cause has been shown for the delay and reliance could be placed on IV 2016 CPJ 178 (NC) Reliance General Insurance Co. Vs. Pariyojna Nirman Pvt.Ltd. and 2017 NCJ 947 Sunita Vs. Bajaj Allianze Insurance Co.

 

In view of the above the appeal is liable to be dismissed on ground of delay only.

 

The matter has also been considered on merits. Heard

4

 

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

 

The contention of the appellant is that false facts have been submitted in the proposal form as regard to the business and income of the deceased. As per the proposal form the contention of the insured was that she is running Iqbal Milk Dairy having income of only Rs. 2 lakhs and to support this contention affidavit of Mohd.Shaffi and ors. in total five were submitted before the Forum below which are being rightly relied by the Forum below.

 

The contention of the appellant is that he submitted the affidavit of husband and son of the insured which clearly established that material facts have been suppressed but record of the Forum below goes to show that on 17.7.2013 the reply of the appellant was closed. Hence, no reply and connected documents are on record and cannot be looked into.

 

Hence, in view of the above that there is no evidence on the part of the appellant to rebutt the contention of the consumer the Forum below has rightly allowed the claim

5

 

and there is no merit in this appeal.

 

The appellant has relied upon judgment passed by the National Commission in Consumer Case No. 148/2008 Neetaben Mukund Shah & ors. Vs. Birla Sunlife Insurance Co. where on the facts of the case suppression of material facts was established but here in the present case the appellant has not proved any fact before the Forum below per contra the affidavits submitted by the consumer are rightly been relied upon by the Forum below as there was no rebuttal to the above affidavits.

 

In view of the above there is no merit in this appeal and liable to be dismissed on ground of delay as well as on merits also.

(Nisha Gupta) President

nm