THE KARNATAKA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BANGALORE. (ADDL. BENCH)

DATED THIS THE 22^nd DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2021

PRESENT

SRI RAVI SHANKAR – JUDICIAL MEMBER

SMT. SUNITA C.BAGEWADI - MEMBER

APPEAL NO. 518/2021

Sri. Shivashankar. H, A/a 58 years,

S/o Late Honnappa, R/at No.218,

4^th Main, 5^th Cross, Gowrishankar Nagar,

Ooty Road, Mysuru-570 008.

….Appellant/s.

(By Shri/Smt. P.Nataraju,  Adv.,)

                                          -Versus-

1.       The Manager (Claims), LIC of India,

          Divisional Office, Jevan Prakash,

          P.B.No.37, Mysuru-Bengaluru Road,

          Bannimantap, Mysuru-570 009.

2.       The Zonal Manager, LIC of India,

          SCZO, Jeevan Bhagya, Sifabad,

          Hyderabad, Telangana State-500 063.

……….. Respondent/s

:ORDERS ON ADMISSION:

BY SRI.RAVI SHANKAR  -  JUDICIAL MEMBER

         The complainant filed this appeal against the order dated:30.01.2019  passed in C.C.No.240/2018 by the District Commission, Mysore, which dismissed the complaint for default and submits that his son had took an insurance policy from Opposite Party and during the policy was in force, the son of the complainant died on 17.07.2016.  After this death, being the nominee and Legal Representative, he claimed for compensation from Opposite Party, but the Opposite Party for the best reasons known to them repudiated the claim, against which the complainant filed the complaint alleging deficiency in service and prayed for compensation to the tune of  Rs.5,00,000/- with interest @ 24% p.a.  After filing the complaint, it was admitted and the District Commission issued a notice to the respondent.  Accordingly, the respondent appeared and filed the version.  Subsequently, the District Commission posted the case for complainant’s evidence.  But the complainant could not file his evidence as on the date provided, because he was not come out from the shock of his son’s death.   In spite of that, the District Commission has not provided sufficient time to file evidence.  The District Commission also imposed cost for providing time, but complainant could not file evidence on 30.01.2019, finally dismissed the complaint.  Hence, prays to set-aside the order passed by the District Commission as he got a good case to urge and he is entitled to get compensation from Opposite Party.  Hence, prays to allow the appeal.   

2.       We have heard the arguments. 

3.       On going through the memorandum of appeal, order-sheet of District commission produced by the complainant, we noticed that on 20.09.2018 the Opposite Party has filed his version.  Subsequently, the District Commission posted the case for evidence of the complainant on 25.10.2018.  On that day, the complainant was not present.  Subsequently, it was posted on 12.12.2018 finally for the affidavit evidence of complainant and even on that day also, the complainant absent.  Anyhow, time was provided on 16.01.2019, on that day also, the complainant absent, for which the District Commission imposed cost of Rs.100/- and posted the case for complainant’s evidence on 30.01.2019.  Even on that day also, the complainant was not present and cost also not paid.  Having no other option, the District Commission dismissed the complaint for default.      

4.       Whereas the appellant before this Commission had submitted that the District Commission has not provided sufficient time to file evidence.  The said contention is not acceptable.  We observed here that the son of the complainant was died in the year 2016, whereas the complaint filed in the year 2018.  Even the ground taken that shock due to his son death cannot be accepted.  The District Commission rightly dismissed the complaint for default and the complainant has not explained proper and valid reasons for not appearing before the District Commission to lead the evidence.  Under these circumstances, we found there is no valid grounds to set-aside the order passed by the District Commission.  Accordingly, the appeal is liable to be dismissed.  Hence, we proceed to pass the following:-

:ORDER:

The appeal is dismissed.  No costs.

The impugned order dated:30.01.2019 passed by the Mysore District Commission in C.C.no.240/2018 is hereby confirmed.

Send a copy of this order to both parties as well as Concerned District Commission.

Member.                                                               Judicial Member.

Tss