NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. Vs. DHAYA DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short "the Act of 1986") has been filed by the appellant -National Insurance Company Ltd. (opposite party No. 3 in the original complaint) against the order dated 24.12.2007 passed by the learned District Forum, Jodhpur in Complaint Case No. 457/2006 by which the complaint filed by the complainant -respondent No. 1 under Section 12 of the Act of 1986 was allowed against the appellant -Insurance Company in the manner that the appellant -Insurance Company was directed to pay to the complainant respondent No. 1 the sum insured under the group insurance policy to the tune of Rs. one lac along with interest @ 9% p.a. with effect from the date of filing claim till payment was made and the appellant was further directed to pay to the complainant respondent No. 1 a sum of Rs. 10,000 as compensation for mental agony and Rs. 1,500 as cost of litigation within 15 days from the date of order failing which the complainant respondent No. 1 would be entitled to get interest on that amount at the rate of 9% p.a. from the date of order till payment was made. The complaint against the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 employer was dismissed.

(2.) IT may be stated here that the complainant respondent No. 1 had filed a complaint under Section 12 of the Act of 1986 before the District Forum, Jodhpur against the appellant -Insurance Company and the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 -JVVNL (RSEB) on 6.6.2006 stating inter alia that her husband Jagdish Kachhawaha (hereinafter referred to as the deceased) was employee in the RSEB Department (respondent Nos. 2 and 3) and deceased was member of group insurance policy which was taken by the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 employer from the appellant -Insurance Company for the period from 1.6.2001 to 31.5.2002 and as per the terms of the group insurance policy, if any employee, who was member of the group insurance policy, dies in an accident, the appellant -Insurance Company would pay a sum of Rs. one lac to his dependent or claimant. It was further stated in the complaint that deceased had sustained injuries due to electric current on 9.3.2002 for which mug FIR No. 1/02 was also lodged in the Police Station Pipar City, Jodhpur under Section 174, Cr.P.C. It was further stated in the complaint that deceased had died on 16.3.2002 and after the death of the deceasd, the complainant respondent No. 1 being wife and nominee of the deceased submitted a claim to the office of the respondents Nos. 2 and 3 employer in the month of March, 2002 and, therafter, the claim was forwarded by the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 to the appellant Insurance Company, but that claim was not settled by the appellant Insurance Company. Hence, the present complaint was filed.

(3.) A reply was filed by the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 RSEB employer on 28.8.2006 in the manner that the claim, which was lodged by the complainant respondent No. 1 after the death of the deceased, was sent to the office of the appellant Insurance Company on 30.3.2002, but the appellant Insurance Company had not settled the claim. It was further replied that complainant respondent No. 1 should have also approached the office of the appellant Insurance Company. It was further replied that on the application of the complainant respondent No. 1 dated 30.4.2005, the matter was again taken up by the respondent Nos. 2 amd 3 with the appropriate authorities and claim was again sent by the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 RSEB -employer to the United India Insurance Co. Ltd. as in the year 2005, the agreement for group insurance policy was with the United India Insurance Co. Ltd. and since at the time of death of the deceased, the agreement for group insurance policy was with the appellant Insurance Company, therefore, the claim of the complainant -respondent No. 1 was sent to the appellant Insurance Company on 30.3.2002, but the appellant had not settled the claim for which the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 employer could not be held liable and liability should be imposed on the appellant Insurance Company. Hence, it was prayed that the complaint against the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 be dismissed.