AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY Vs. SURENDRA DAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The writ petition was moved on 4/8/2022. On behalf of petitioners (insurance company) submission was, by impugned award dtd. 13/5/2016 of the Permanent Lok Adalat (PLA), there was, inter alia, direction to pay out on the life insurance policy in respect of the Dead Life Assured (DLA). This could not have been done since, there was repudiation of the claim. Investigation had revealed that the DLA was over aged at the time of taking the policy. The award is also bad because mandatory procedure for settlement was not followed by the PLA.

(2.) Today Mr. Sinha, learned senior advocate appearing on behalf of petitioners submits, his clients have filed additional affidavit, as required by Court, disclosing accepted standard and non-standard age proofs. However, that has nothing to do with his clients' challenge. Investigation caused by his client was under authority of provision in sub-sec. (5) in sec. 45 in Insurance Act, 1938. The investigation revealed that electoral roll prepared in year, 2015 had entery in it bearing particulars of the DLA. Age shown as on year, 2015 was 83. Second irrefutable piece of evidence unearthed by investigation were old age pension papers, in respect of pension drawn by the DLA. The PLA awarded in favour of opposite party no.1 on perversity, as not based on relevant evidence.

(3.) Mr. Sinha relies on views of a learned Single Judge of this Court in Raghunath Behera Vs. Balaram Behera, reported in AIR 1996 Orissa 38, paragraph 9. Relied upon passage from said paragraph is reproduced below.