KESARI DEVI Vs. LIC OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) -this appeal under Sec.15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 by the complainant is directed against the order of the District Forum I, Jaipur dated 6.6.1997 dismissing her Complaint No.1245 of 1996.

(2.) Relevant facts are these: late Sri. Mukti Lal Kumawat, the deceased husband of Smt. Kesar Devi, complainant-appellant, had obtained on 15.7.1992 an insurance policy for Rs.50,000/- on his own life from the L. I. C. respondent. The premium payable towards the said policy was on half-yearly basis, the due dates falling on 15th January and 15th July every year. The insured died on 14.5.1994 in a road accident. By that time the premium payable on 15.1.1994 had not been paid. Smt. Kesar Devi respondent, the nominee under the said policy, filed her claim with the respondent Insurance Corporation alleging that the premium due on 15.1.1994 had been paid through Cheque No.148500 dated 12.5.1994 drawn on Dena Bank, Jaipur in favour of the respondent Corporation. The respondent, Corporation, however, repudiated the claim of the appellant on the ground that the policy already stood lapsed due to non-payment of the premium payable on 15.1.1994 or within the grace period thereafter and that the tender of payment thereof through the cheque dated 12.5.1994, issued by a third party and received by the Corporation from the Box, placed in the office of the Bank for convenience of the late depositors of the dues, payable by them, was fraudulently and dishonestly made after the death of the insured and hence was not accepted by the Corporation. On a complaint having been filed by the appellant before it, the District Forum has upheld the ground of repudiation.

(3.) The learned Counsel for the appellant vehemently urged that Sri Surender Kumar Sharma, who had drawn the cheque dated 12.5.1994 on his banker, Dena Bank Jaipur, in favour of the L. I. C. respondent towards the payment of the premium fallen due on 15.1.1994 had deposed in his affidavit that he had issued the aforesaid cheque on the basis of the standing instruction of the deceased insured, who was his fast friend since childhood and was working in Bombay at the relevant time, and that the Forum erred in not accepting his sworn testimony. It was further urged by the learned Counsel that the receipt of the cheque dated 12.5.1994 was duly recorded in the Receipt Register of the respondent and, therefore, the payment of the premium was made during the life-time of the life assured. It was thus submitted that the claim of the respondent was genuine and deserves to be accepted.