Delhi

StateCommission

FA/1337/2013

HARI RAM - Complainant(s)

Versus

LIC OF INDIA - Opp.Party(s)

05 Nov 2015

ORDER

IN THE STATE COMMISSION : DELHI

(Constituted under Section 9 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986)

Date of Decision: 05.11.2015

First Appeal- 1337/2013

IN THE MATTER OF:-

Shri. Hari Ram F/o Late Shri. Dinesh Kumar,

Shop No. 305, Vikas Surya Tower,

III Floor, Plot No. 7,

Sector 12, Dwarka,

New Delhi

                                                                                      …..Appellant

 

Versus

Divisional Manager

Life Insurance Corp. of India,

86, Janpath,

New Delhi-110002

                                                                                 …..Respondent CORAM

(Justice Veena Birbal, President)

(O.P. Gupta, Member (Judicial)

1.     Whether reporters of local newspaper be allowed to see the judgment?

2.      To be referred to the reporter or not?

 

 (Justice Veena Birbal, President

1.             This is an appeal of section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act (in short ‘The Act’) against the order dated 19.08.2013 passed in complaint case no. 631/09 from the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, M-Block, Vikas Bhawan, New Delhi.

2.             Along with the appeal there is an application for condonation of delay of 85 days in filing the appeal.

3.             It is stated that the impugned order was passed on 19.08.2013 by the Ld. District Forum. The copy of the same was not sent to appellant officially. The appellant had received the copy of impugned order only on 30.10.2013 from the Ld. District Forum as such the appellant had come to know of the passing of the impugned order only on 30.10.2013. Thereafter, steps were taken and present appeal is filed on 16.12.2013. It is     stated that from the date of knowledge there is a delay of 10 days and from the date of impugned order the delay is of 85 days in filing the appeal. It is stated that the appellant is a resident of Haryana and being an old person, could not contact his counsel for filing the present appeal and as such the delay in filing the appeal be condoned.

4.             On the other hand, Ld. counsel for respondent has submitted that the impugned order was dispatched on 19.08.2013 by the Ld. District Forum to both the parties and it is not believable that no order was received by the appellant. It is submitted that appellant ought to have made efforts to enquire from the District Forum about the passing of the impugned order in case he had not received the same as is alleged. It is not believable that all of a sudden the appellant had gone before the Ld. District Forum on 30.10.2013 and received the impugned order. It is submitted that the explanation given is not believable. It is also submitted that on 30.10.2013 appellant had sent the original policy Bond to respondent for settling the claim. It is submitted that other material was supplied on 26.11.2013. Thereafter, the claim was passed and settled. It is alleged that after receipt of amount of Rs. 1,11,782/- on 11.12.2013, on 16.12.2013 the appeal is filed. It is alleged that false grounds have been given stated in the application to cover up the limitation.

5.             The copy of impugned order on record shows that the same was dispatched to the parties on 19.08.2013. It is also not denied by appellant that pursuant to impugned order he had sent the original policy document for settlement of claim as per direction given in the impugned order on 30.10.2013. It is not believable that on 30.10.2013 the appellant had received the impugned order as is alleged and on that very day he was able to send the original policy bond for settlement of the claim. It is also not denied that on receipt settlement amount, the present appeal is filed. In these circumstances, explanation given for condoning the delay is not believable. We are not inclined to condone the delay.

6.             The grievance of the appellant viz-a-viz  impugned order is that the interest and litigation cost has not been awarded for delay disbursement of policy amount.

7.             Perusal of record shows that appellant/complainant had filed a complaint case before the Ld. District Forum that his son had obtained a Life Insurance Policy with profits including accidental benefits from respondent/OP. His son had met with an accident on 31.07.2008 and was take to Govt. Hospital, Alwar where he was declared dead. After the death of his son, appellant/complainant submitted relevant papers for settlement of insurance claim but the same was not settled. Since the claim was not paid, the appellant/complainant filed the complaint case before the Ld. District Forum.

8.             The respondent/OP contested the claim by alleging that the necessary documents for settlement of claim were not submitted by the appellant/complainant as such claim could not be settled. It was also alleged that even letter dated 24.04.2009 was sent to appellant/complainant in this regard. Despite that no documents were sent.

9.             Ld. counsel for respondent/OP submits that on the basis of documents placed on record before the Ld. District Forum as well as further documents supplied by appellant/complainant after passing the impugned order, the respondent/OP has settled the claim and the delay was on the part of appellant due to which no interest has been awarded. It is stated that the impugned order stands complied with by the respondent/OP and policy amount of Rs. 1,11,782/- has already been made to appellant/OP. It is submitted that no evidence was led before the Ld. District Forum that the documents required by the respondent/OP for setting the claim were furnished by the appellant/complainant.

10.            While arguing the appeal it is submitted that due to said reason the Ld. District Forum has not awarded compensation, interest to the appellant/OP.

11.            Ld. counsel for appellant/complainant has submitted that the requisite documents were got prepared. However, there is no proof that the same were deposited within the concerned authorities.

12.            In these circumstances, no illegality is seen in the impugned order. There is no deficiency in service on the part of OP in not settling the claim earlier. In these circumstances, the claim of compensation, interest and litigation costs has been rightly rejected.

                Appeal is dismissed on both the counts i.e. on limitation as well as on merits.

(Justice Veena Birbal)

President

 

 

(O.P. Gupta)

Member (Judicial)

 

 

 

Rakeeba