JAIMANTI DEVI Vs. BRANCH MANAGER, ICICI LOMBARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present Revision Petition (RP) has been filed by the Petitioner against Respondent as detailed above, under Sec. 21 (b) of Consumer Protection Act 1986, against the order dtd. 8/11/2016 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Uttar Pradesh (hereinafter referred to as the 'State Commission'), in First Appeal (FA) No.2139 of 2011 in which order dtd. 30/11/2011 of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum Aligarh (hereinafter referred to as District Forum) in Consumer Complaint (CC) no.99 of 2011 was challenged, inter alia praying for :

(2.) While the Revision Petitioner (hereinafter also referred to as Complainant) was Appellant and the Respondent (hereinafter also referred to as OP) was Respondent in the said FA No. 2139 of 2011 before the State Commission, the Revision Petitioner was Complainant and Respondent was OP before the District Forum in the CC No. 99 of 2011. Notice was issued to the Respondent on 15/1/2020. Parties filed Written Arguments/Synopsis on 3/8/2023 and 6/7/2023 respectively.

(3.) Brief facts of the case, as emerged from the RP, Order of the State Commission, Order of the District Forum and other case records are that Uttar Pradesh Government launched a welfare scheme in August 2004 to indemnify the farmer(s) who dies due to unnatural death and the family will receive compensation of Rs.1.00 lacs. Complainant stated that the UP Government increased the compensation from Rs.1,00,000.00 to Rs.5,00,000.00 w.e.f. 23/5/2012. The agreement regarding policy was executed with ICICI and it was the duty of the ICICI to do timely payment . Husband of the complainant Sri Hari Singh @ Hari Ram who was the holder of land was murdered on the intervening night of 21/22/4.2008. The police was informed and case under Sec. 302 IPC was registered. The papers were forwarded to the Insurance Company through D.M. office. However, the money was not received though it should have been received within three months. Being aggrieved of non payment by the Insurance Company, the Complainant filed a CC before the District Forum which dismissed the complaint of the Complainant. Aggrieved by the order of the State Commission, the Complainant filed an appeal before the State Commission which was also dismissed. Hence the Complainant is before this Commission now in the present Revision Petition.