A-458/2019

20-10-2022

O R D E R

BY SRI.RAVISHANKAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER.

Heard from both parties. The Learned advocate for appellant submits that, the complaint initially had filed the complaint before the District Consumer Commission alleging deficiency of service for non-payment of the assured amount after the death of the life assured. After issuance of notice from the District Consumer Commission, this appellant could not appear before the District Consumer Commission as they assigned the summons of this complaint to legal counsel King Stubb & Kasiva at New Delhi and in turn the matter was referred to Local Associate, Bengaluru to file Vakaltnama and contest the matter, but the Local Associate for the reason best known to him could not appeared before the District Consumer Commission to contest the matter and placed exparte, after trial District Consumer Commission directed this appellant to pay an amount of Rs.10,79,797-00 along with interest @ 12% per annum from 10-1-2018 by deducting the amount paid towards the claim to the tune of Rs.2,91,006.22.

2. The learned counsel for appellant submits that, the life assured at the time of taking policy had not disclosed the income and employment and source of income for payment of the premium and had obtained the policy by misrepresentation. Hence, they declined to settle the claim and they have paid, the paid up amount ofRs.2,91,006.22 to the complainant. Hence submits no deficiency of service.  

3. On perusal of the order passed by the District Consumer Commission and memorandum of appeal, we noticed the reasons for non-appearance before the District Consumer Commission to take any defence is not satisfactory. Being a party to the dispute should appear before the District Consumer Commission and see that the matter should be contested. Mere allegation on the part of the Local Associate for non-representation is not a valid ground to set aside the order of exparte. We found there is no any error in the order passed by the District Consumer Commission. The District Consumer Commission has rightly appreciated the evidence and documents produced by complainant and allowed the complaint. We do not find any merits in the appeal. More over non discloser source of income is not ground for rejection of the claim for payment of assured amount. We noticed that life assured had paid three years premiums towards policy, if life assured alive, we assume she could have paid the premiums irrespective of source of income. Hence, mere payment of paid up amount towards the claim of entire assured amount by the Opposite Party amounts to deficiency of service. Hence appeal is dismissed and no interference is required towards the order passed by the District Consumer Commission. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed and appellant is directed to comply the order of the District Consumer Commission within 45 days.

4. We noticed here that, during the pendency of this appeal, the appellant had paid Rs.3,00,000-00 before this Commission. Hence office is directed to issue cheque in favour of complainant/respondent with accrued interest if any by obtaining proper ID.

Member                                                      Judicial Member