Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rohtak.
Complaint No. : 120.
Instituted on : 03.03.2008.
Decided on : 06.08.2009.
Gunwati wife of late Sh. Rattan Singh resident of village Kheri-Meham Tehsil Meham Distt. Rohtak.
………..Complainant.
Vs.
1. Senior Divisional Manager. Divisional Office, LIC of India, Jeewan Parkash, 489, Model Town, Karnal.
2. Branch Manager, Branch Office, Life Insurance of India, Opp. Radio Station, Rohtak.
……….Opposite parties.
COMPLAITN U/S 12 OF CONCUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986.
BEFORE: SH. JOGINDER SINGH JAKHAR, PRESIDENT.
SMT. MEENA KUMARI, MEMBER.
SH. VIRENDRA KUMAR JAIN, MEMBER.
Present: Sh.S.K.Nehra, Advocate for the complainant.
Sh.S.P.Gulati, Advocate for the opposite parties.
ORDER
JOGINDER SINGH JAKHAR, PRESIDENT:
According to the complainant his son Sh. Krishan Beniwal had taken an insurance policy no.173869950 for a sum of Rs.51000/- on 27.01.2000 from the opposite party no.2. Complainant was nominated as nominee in that policy. It is further submitted that the son of the complainant had expired on 25.11.04 in a Motor Vehicle Accident. As per terms and conditions of the policy, if the insured died in the Motor Vehicle Accident, then the nominee shall get double of the insured amount. The complainant applied for death claim with the opposite party no.2 and submitted the entire relevant documents. It is further submitted that the opposite parties had only paid Rs.52514/- on dated 16.3.2005 vide cheque no.0255991 and had not paid the Double Claim. Complainant requested the opposite parties to pay the double of the insured amount as per terms and conditions of the policy but to no effect. The act of opposite parties of non payment of accident benefit to the complainant is illegal and amounts to deficiency in service. Hence this complaint with prayer to direct the opposite parties to pay the insured amount alongwith interest @ 18% w.e.f the date of death of life assured Krishan Lal till the date of actual payment and also to pay compensation of Rs.100000/- on account of mental agony and harassment to the complainant.
After notice opposite parties appeared and filed their written reply submitting therein that it is admitted that a policy bearing no.173869950 was issued in favour of Krishan Beniwal for sum assured of Rs.51000/- and the said policy was subject to terms and conditions of the policy bond which resulted into contract. The death claim of sum assured with bonus amounting to Rs.52514/- has already been paid to the claimant. It is further submitted that since the claimant has not submitted the Driving License despite opposite party’s letter dated 10.07.05 hence accident benefits cannot be considered. It is responsibility of the complainant to submit the required driving license which is essential for consideration of accident benefits. The claims for accident benefits, interest or damages is not maintainable and the same deserves dismissal with costs.
Both the parties led evidence in support of their case.
Complainant in his evidence tendered affidavit Ex.P1, documents Ex.P2 to Ex.P4 and closed his evidence.
Ld. Counsel for the opposite party in his evidence tendered affidavit Ex.R1, documents Ex.R2 to Ex.R6 and closed his evidence.
We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the evidence and other material aspect of the case very carefully.
After going through the file and hearing the parties we have observed that in the present case insurance and death of the life assured in an accident is not disputed. As per photocopy of order dated 9.11.06 Ex.P2, an M.A.C.T. Claim Ex.P2 has also been passed in favour of the complainant by the MACT, Rohtak. It is also not disputed that after the death of life assured sum assured alongwith bonus amounting to Rs.52514/- has already been paid to the claimant but the accident benefit under the policy has not been given to the complainant on the ground that opposite party is not liable to pay any accident benefits in the absence of non submission of Driving license as per terms of policy conditions which were the basis of contract.
After going through the file and hearing the parties we are of the considered view that it is not proved on file that at the time of issue of policy, the terms and conditions of the policy were also supplied to the life assured as the terms and conditions placed on file Ex.R3 have not been singed by the complainant. In this regard Hon’ble Uttaranchal State Commission, Dehradun in 2005(2)JRC titled Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Neerja Rani Sharma has held that: “Terms of policy-If the policy has not been given to the complainant, the insurance Company cannot rely on its terms and conditions-Such terms and conditions should have been specifically informed to the complainant”.
Keeping in view the above referred case law which is applicable on the facts and circumstances of the case we have come to the conclusion that complaint is tenable. Accordingly we hereby allow the complaint with direction to the opposite parties to pay the accident benefits under the policy alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing the present complaint till its realization and Rs.1500/-(Rupees one thousand five hundred only) as litigation expenses to the complainant maximum within one month from the date of decision failing which the amount of award shall carry interest @ 12% p.a. from dated 06.09.2009 onwards till its realization to the complainant.
Copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of costs.
File be consigned to the record room.
Announced in open court:
06.08.2009.
………………………….
Joginder Singh Jakhar.
…………………………
Meena Kumari, Member.
…………………………
Virendra Kumar Jain, Member.
vs
Tags: LIC of India