Appeal No.298/09


1.The Assistant Director,Postal Services,Rajasthan Eastern Region,Jodhpur.

2.Superintendent Post Office,Nagaru.

3.Dy.Post Office,Branch Office Khakoli

Appellants


V.

Chuka Devi w/o Khiwa Ram,r/o Bugalia Ki Dhani,Nagaur.

Respondent



Before:


Mr.Justice Sunil Kumar Garg-President

Mrs.Vimla Sethiya-Member



Shri Tej Prakash Sharma,counsel for the appellants

Shri Ajay Tantia,counsel for the respondent



Date of judgement: 6.7.09




BY THE STATE COMMISSION


Heard at admission stage.

This appeal has been filed by the appellants Postal Department against the order dated 23.1.09 passed by the District Forum,Nagaur in complaint no.194/08,by which the complaint of the complainant respondent was allowed against the appellants in the manner that the appellants were directed to pay a sum of Rs. 1 lac after deduction of the unpaid instalments with interest and further ordered to pay Rs.1500/- as amount of cost of litigation.


It arises in the following circumstances:


That the complainant respondent had filed a complaint

2


against the appellants before the District Forum,Nagaur on 19.9.08 interalia stating that her husband Shri Khiwaram,now deceased had taken an insurance policy known as Dak Jeevan Bima from the appellants for a sum of Rs.1 lac on 21.4.05. It was further stated in the complaint that the insured had died on 24.10.07 and thereafter a claim was preferred by the complainant respondent being the wife and nominee of the deceased, but that claim was repudiated by the appellants in the following manner:


“In above referred matter,it is intimated that policy of the above insurance was lapsed due to nondeposit of the premium and its claims to any benefit by virtue thereof ceased.

As a consequence the department forfiets the policy money.

The claimant may be informed accordingly.”


Thereafter the present complaint was filed.


A reply was filed by the appellants on 24.12.08 before the District Forum,Nagaur and the case of the appellants was that the insured had expired on 24.10.07 and before that premium for the period 7.7.07 to October,07 was not received from the deceased and 90 days had expired on 28.9.07 and since premium even was not paid under the grace period,therefore,on the date of death the policy was in a lapsed condition and thus the claim was rightly repudiated.


The District Forum after hearing both the parties,through the impugned order dated 23.1.09 had allowed the complaint as stated above, interalia holding that in condition no.39(2)(iv)of the policy it was specifically mentioned that if the death of the life insured occures within 36 months, but not before completion of 24

3


months from the date of acceptance of the policy, remission period of 90 days shall be allowed in addition to the period of grace and further since in the present case the policy was taken on 21.4.05 and upto 21.5.07 premium for 25 months had already been paid meaning thereby,for more than 24 months and since the death had taken place within 36 months,therefore,in such circumstances,after deducting the premium for the months,June,07 to October,07 from the insured amount of Rs.1 lac, the rest amount was ordered be paid to the complainant respondent.

Aggrieved from that order,this appeal has been filed by the appellants.

In this appeal,the main contention of the learned counsel for the appellants is that since the policy on the date of death was a lapased policy,therefore,the findings recorded by the District Forum by which the complaint was decreed in the manner as stated above suffers from basic infirmity and illegality and be quashed and set aside and appeal be allowed.


In our considered opinion,the District Forum had rightly interpreted the condition no.39(2)(iv) of the policy and we are in agreement with the findings recorded by the District Forum as upto 24 months premiums were paid in time and death of the insured had taken place before the expiry of 36 months and if after deduction of unpaid instalments for the period June,07 to October,07,the rest amount was ordered to be paid by the appellants,the District Forum had not committed any illegality in passing the impugned order and the findings recorded by the District Forum are liable to be confirmed one as they are based on correct appreciation of evidence on record and they do not suffer from any basic infirmity or illegality and thus the repudiation of the claim by the appellants was not justified.

4



For reasons as stated above,this appeal filed by the appellants deserves to be dismissed and the same is dismissed.




Member President