UNION OF INDIA Vs. ANITA SINGHVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition challenges the order dated 26.2.2010 of the Rajasthan State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Jaipur (in short, 'the State Commission') in FA No. 1130 of 2008. By this order, the State Commission substantially affirmed the order dated 24,5.2008 of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Chittorgarh (in short, 'the District Forum'). By the said order, the District Forum had directed the petitioner (who were the opposite parties - OPs before the District Forum) to pay Rs. 1 lakh (the amount of personal accident insurance), with interest @ 9% per annum from 1.5.2006 if the amount was not paid within one month. The District Forum also awarded Rs. 2,000 as compensation and Rs.1,000 towards costs and further directed that the total amount to be paid to the respondent/complainant would be recoverable from the defaulting officials of the Department of Posts. In appeal, the State Commission modified the order of the District Forum only to the extent that the direction to recover the amount payable to the respondent/complainant from the responsible officials was set aside.

(2.) The complainant is the wife of one Sushil Kumar Singhvi (deceased) who had opened a savingsbank account with Post Office, Sambhupura on 23.10.1989 of which the complainant, being the wife of the deceased Sushil Kumar Singhvi, was the nominee. The Oriental Insurance Company (OIC) introduced a personal accident insurance scheme which was operated through the Post Offices. The scheme involved insurance for Rs. 1 lakh in case of death due to accident, on payment of annual premium of Rs. 15 by the savings bank account holder. Sushil Kumar's Savings Bank account was debited by Rs. 15 by the Post Office on 10.4.2006. Sushil Kumar died in a road accident on 13.6.2006. When the claim for the insurance amount was lodged, the OIC repudiated it on the ground that the premium in respect of Sushil Kumar's account had been received by the OIC on 31.7.2006 and, therefore, the insurance cover was not available on the date he died. This led the nominee (and the wife) of the deceased Sushil Kumar to file a consumer complaint before the District Forum and the subsequent orders.

(3.) We have heard Mr. B.S. Sharma, Advocate on behalf of the petitioners. No one was present, however, on behalf of the respondent/complainant though notice for the hearing was duly served and the respondent had also received Rs. 5,000 sent by the petitioners directly to her towards travel and other related expenses in connection with these proceedings. The matter was accordingly proceeded ex parte against the respondent/complainant.