Challenge in this Revision Petition, by the Life Insurance Corporation of India (for short “the Insurance Company”) and its Manager, is to the two orders dated 22.10.2008 and 10.2.2009, passed by the U.P. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission at Lucknow (for short “the State Commission”) in Appeal No.1466/2006. By the impugned order dated 22.10.2008, the State Commission had affirmed the order dated 11.5.2006, passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Lucknow (for short “the District Forum”) in Complaint No.260/2005. By the said order, the State Commission, while allowing the Complaint filed by the Respondent herein, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the Insurance Company in not paying a sum of ₹1,00,000/-, the amount due under the Marriage Endowment/Educational Annuity Plan with Accident Benefits on the death of the insured, had directed the Insurance Company to pay the said amount along with simple interest at the rate of 6% p.a. thereon from the date of institution of the Complaint till realization along with litigation expenses, quantified at ₹1,000/-. 2. No one has put in appearance on behalf of the Complainant, although on the last date of hearing, the Complainant was represented through a Counsel. 3. Accordingly, I have heard Mr.Nikhil Jain, Learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company. 4. The short grievance of the Insurance Company is that although the aforesaid amount is payable to the insured under the said policy but as per the condition of the policy, the entire amount, including the Bonus till the date of maturity would be payable only on 28.2.2019, when the policy is to mature and not on the death of the Insured. 5. Having perused the cover note for the policy, placed on record, I find substance in the contention urged by the learned counsel. Nevertheless, bearing in mind the fact that the amount directed to be released to the Complainant along with the claim preferred by him under the second Policy, taken by the Insured, for the assured sum of ₹3,00,000/-, I am of the view that at this juncture it would be harsh to set aside the direction regarding the release of the said amount. Therefore, in my opinion, instead of setting aside the impugned order, directing the release of the said amount forthwith, interests of justice would be sub-served by directing that since the Complainant has received or would be receiving the said amount in advance, he will not be entitled to the interest on the said amount, as awarded by the lower Fora. 6. Consequently, the Revision Petition is partly allowed with a direction that the Insurance Company shall not be liable to pay to the Complainant interest on the aforesaid amount of ₹1,00,000/-, as directed in the impugned order. Rest of the directions contained in the impugned order are maintained. The aforesaid amount shall be remitted by the Insurance Company to the Complainant, if not already paid, within four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 7. On payment of the said amount, it would be open to the Insurance Company to withdraw the amount deposited by it in the District Forum in terms of order dated 8.7.2009. Needless to add that if the said amount has already been received by the Complainant, in full or in part, the same shall be accounted for at the time of payment/remittance in terms of this order. 8. The Revision Petition stands disposed of in the above terms, with no order as to costs. |
