L I C Vs. JAMUNA CHANDA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Both sides are present through their respective Counsels. This appeal has arisen out of the impugned order of the learned District Forum, Kolkata, Unit-1. In the judgment the Forum directed the L. I. C. I. to pay Rs.10,052/- with interest at the rate of 12% p. a. from the date of the claim i. e. , 28.1.1999 up to the actual date of payment.

(2.) Being aggrieved by the order dated 23.4.2002, the Life Insurance Corporation of India has preferred this appeal.

(3.) The brief facts giving rise to this appeal are as under: one Shri Khagendra Nath Chanda, the deceased husband of the appellant took out an L. I. C. I. policy for the sum assured Rs.14,000/- with accident benefit, which meant that in case of death due to accident the nominee would get double the sum assured. After the death of the policy holder, the wife (respondent herein) as the nominee lodged claim under the policy stating that her husband died in an accident. But according to the appellant she could not prove that the death happened solely and directly due to the accident as she did not produce any police report and post-mortem report to establish her claim. The Corporation paid the sum of Rs.17,948/- i. e. , the sum assured and bonus which was duly received by the respondent in full and final settlement of claim by signing the discharge voucher. After receiving the payment the respondent filed a case before the District Forum. The appellants submit that the Forum was wrong in allowing the case without considering the policy condition No.10, under the heading 'accident Benefit'. In Clause No.10 (b) it is stated that the accident benefit is payable only if the life assured sustained bodily injury resulting solely and directly from the accident caused by outward violent and visible means and such injury shall solely, directly and independently of all other causes result in death of life assured. The Corporation has drawn our attention that as this is a case for recovery of money even after full and final settlement of claim, it is not at all maintainable under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 . The appellants pray for allowing the appeal and for setting aside the impugned judgment.