LIC OF INDIA Vs. JYOTI CHHATWANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure is directed against the judgment and decree dated 6.5.1992 passed by the learned District Judge, Ajmer in Civil Suit No. 238/87. The brief facts are as under:

(2.) SHRI pars Chhatwani (the deceased) was the late husband of the plaintiff Smt. Jyoti Chhatwani. The deceased had taken from the defendant -appellants life insurance policy No. 50610397 dated 15.11.1984 for Rs. 25,000/ -. The deceased died on account of heart -attack on 1.12.1984 and, thereafter, on 6.12.1984 his widow Smt. Jyoti Chhatwani (the plaintiff) sent an intimation in this respect of the defendant by filling a form claiming the amount in regard to the policy in question. Certain information was asked for by the defendant -appellant including the proof in regard to the date of birth of the deceased. The said information was supplied by the plaintiff to the defendant who, vide letter dated 13/17/7/1985 repudiated the claim for the amount on the ground that the deceased had concealed material information in the proposal form submitted before issuing of the policy inasmuch as the defendant was in possession of the proof that the deceased was having pain in the right shoulder and right hip and had suffered a fracture in left leg and in this connection .. he remained on leave w.e.f. 3.8.1982 to 7.8.1982 and from 14.5.1983 to 2.7.1983 and also consulted a medical practitioner whereas in the proposal form he had given the information that he had not suffered from any ailment which necessiated .. taking the leave for more than seven days. Since the claim was repudiated by the defendant and the amount against the insurance policy was not paid to the plaintiff, the plaintiff filed the suit, out of which this appeal has arisen, on 14.9.1987 contending that the grounds taken in the repudiation letter dated 13/17.7.1985 were baseless and that the plaintiff was entitled to get the amount against the policy taken by her late husband from the defendant and that the defendant was liable to pay the suit amount to the plaintiff who was the nominee in the said policy. The suit was contested by the defendants -appellants on the ground that the material facts were not disclosed by the deceased in the proposal form submitted by him. On the pleadings of the parties, the issues were framed by the learned trial court on 1.2.1991 to the effect whether the deceased had taken the policy in question from the defendant and to the effect .. that the deceased had concealed material facts in the proposal form and as to whether the plaintiff was entitled to receive the amount against the policy. The learned trial court after framing the issues adjourned the case to 17.5.1991 on which date a joint request was made by the learned Counsel for the parties for adjournment and the request was granted by the learned trial court, who adjourned the case to 24.8.1991. On 24.8.1991, the learned Presiding Officer was on leave and the case was adjourned to 22.11.1991 for the evidence of the defendant -appellant. On 22.11.1991 the case was put up before the court and request for adjournment was made as no witness of the defendant was present and since the request was not opposed the case was adjourned to 17.1.1992. Even on 17.1.1992 no witness of the defendant was present and the case was adjourned to 17.4.1992 clearly mentioning that that was the last opportunity being given. On 17.4.1992 again no witness of the defendant was present or summoned and request was made for adjournment but since no ground was coming forward as to why no witness of the defendant was present, the learned trial court declined the request for adjournment and closed the evidence of the defendant. In this view of the matter, the plaintiff did not produce any evidence and, after hearing the learned Counsel for the parties, vide the impugned judgment dated 6.5.1992 the learned trial court has decreed the suit of the plaintiff with costs and directed the defendant -appellant to pay the sum of Re. 25,000/ - along with interest and bonus. Hence this appeal by the defendant.

(3.) SHRI MD Agrawal, the learned Counsel for the defendants -appellants, has contended that the learned trial court was not justified in closing the evidence of the defendant and more opportunity ought to have been granted to the defendant.