STATE OF PUNJAB Vs. GURUCHARAN SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These appeals which we propose to decide by this common order, arise out of the order dated 5.4.1997 of Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Maharashtra, Mumbai disposing of Complaint Case Nos. 541, 542 of 1992 and 85 and 86 of 1993 filed by the complainant/appellant in following terms :

(2.) Sampada Vithal Khot and Sushila Vithal Khot were the wives of appellant. Appellant took two policies for Rs. 1 lakh each and three policies for Rs. 50,000/- each between 20.6.1991 to 16.8.1991 in the name of Sampada Vithal Khot from the respondent-Life Insurance Corporation. Policies for similar amounts were taken during the said period with variation of a week or so in the name of Sushila Vithal Khot by the appellant. It is alleged that on 27.9.1991, while the appellant with his two wives and one daughter was going to Ganapati Pule in an old jeep, the jeep met with an accident as a result whereof both his wives died. Appellant who is beneficiary, made claim for payment of the amounts under the policies which was repudiated by the respondent. Thereafter, aforesaid complaints were filed by the appellant which came to be disposed of by the order dated 5.4.1997 in the manner noticed above by the State Commission. Feeling aggrieved, appellant has preferred these appeals.

(3.) While passing the impugned order, the State Commission also took note of certain observations made by the Claims Review Committee constituted to examine the claims made by appellant headed by the Chief justice of High Court. Upholding repudiation, the Review Committee was of the opinion that claims are based on fraudulent and highly suspicious events and circumstances and the suspicious circumstances relied upon were that both the women were illiterate with no source of income; proposals for insurance were given at different branch offices of the Insurance Company; total amount for which insurance was taken for two women far exceeded the husband's sum insurance. The State Commission was of the view that appellant had not given any reasonable explanation for obtaining 10 policies in the names of his wives within a period of three months from the date of accident. It also took note of the contention advanced on behalf of respondent-Insurance Company that appellant was having an Ambassador car and engaged a driver to move out but on 27.9.1991, he chose to drive the jeep himself so as to exclude the possibility of any third party witnessing the incident. Having heard Mr. Vijay Hansaria for appellant and Mr. Kamal Mehta for respondents, in our view, in the above backdrop, the complaints deserved to be dismissed and no interference under Section 21(a)(ii) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is called for. Accordingly, the appeals are dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs. Appeals dismissed.