Per Hon’ble Mr.S.R.Khanzode, Presiding Judicial Member
This appeal takes an exception to an order dated 29/04/2010 passed in consumer complaint no.54/2008, Yogita Macchindra Bahirat v/s. State of Maharashtra and another; passed by District Forum, Nasik. The consumer complaint pertains to alleged deficiency in service on the part of Insurance Company viz.ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd. (herein after referred as ‘Insurance Co.’) in repudiating the insurance claim, which occurred under the Group Insurance policy taken by the Government of Maharashtra for the benefit of agriculturists and the claim occurred on the death of one of its beneficiary Macchindra Dattatray Bahirat on 18/09/2005. His wife complainant Yogita preferred the claim through the Tahsildar. Forum accepted the case of the complainant and directed Insurance Company to give compensation of `1,00,000/- i.e. the amount of insurance, along with interest @ 12% p.a. w.e.f.28/12/2005, further awarded compensation of `7000/- towards mental torture and costs of `3000/-. Feeling aggrieved thereby Insurance Company preferred this appeal.
Heard Mr.Nikhil Mehta-advocate for the appellant and Mr.Pravartak Pathak-Advocate for respondent no.1.
We find Government of Maharashtra is only a formal party. Three points were pressed before us on behalf of the appellant firstly, ground of limitation, secondly, exclusion clause in the policy laying condition about lodging claim in a particular time period and, thirdly, about grant of interest by the forum w.e.f. 28/12/2005 i.e. since from the time much before lodging of an insurance claim (insurance claim was lodged in the month of March 2008).
As far as point of limitation is concerned, issue was already forfeited by an order dated 12/11/2010 whereby the forum condoned delay in filing the consumer complaint. Therefore, that issue is no more alive.
As far as condition 5(ii) of the policy as reproduced in the written version at para 8 is concerned, in view of amendment to section 28 of the Indian Contract Act, this clause cannot be given effect to. Therefore, that objection also goes away.
As far as last objection regarding award of interest w.e.f. 28/12/2005 is concerned, we find that since claim itself was lodged much later than it, we find it proper to award interest from the date of filing of consumer complaint i.e.27/03/2008. We hold accordingly. Hence the order:-
ORDER
Appeal is partly allowed.
In the operative part of the impugned order in para 3(a) instead of date ‘28/12/2005’ it should be read as ‘27/03/2008’. Except for this modification, rest of the order stands confirmed.
In the given circumstances both the parties to bear their own costs.
At this stage, Ld.counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that appellant has deposited as a condition of stay an amount of `1,65,298/- which must have been kept in fixed deposit and amount payable to the respondent/complainant may be adjusted from the same. Therefore, amount payable to the respondent/original complainant be adjusted from that amount and the balance of the amount, if remain, shall be returned to the appellant.
Pronounced on 14th January, 2013.
