PODDAR YARN AGENCY AND ORS ; BAJAJ ALLIANCE LIFE INSURANCE CO LTD Vs. BAJAJ ALLIANCE LIFE INSURANCE CO LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Both these revision petitions emanate from the common impugned order passed on 20.11.2012 in Appeal no. 109 of 2009 by the Rajasthan State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Jaipur ('the State Commission') and, hence, they have been taken up together and are being disposed of by this common order.

(2.) M/s Poddar Yarn Agency which is the original complainant in the case before the District Forum is petitioner in R.P. No.623 of 2013 and respondent insurance company which was the opposite party before the District Forum is the petitioner in R.P No.1807 of 2013. Parties are addressed by their status in the first R.P. No.623 of 2013.

(3.) The factual matrix giving rise to these petitions are that a complaint came to be filed by the petitioner against the respondent insurance company before the District Forum. It was pleaded by the complainant/petitioner that the respondent company had sold it a 'Key Man Policy' bearing no. 0007972152 for the period starting 01.04.2005 for which the first year premium of Rs. 1,31,525/- was paid by the complainant/ petitioner to the insurance company. It was assured by the insurance company that the firm's partner Mr. Suresh Poddar's personal risk will also be covered in that policy and the petitioner will be entitled to receive the benefit under section 37 (1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Believing the version of the insurance company about the coverage of personal risk of its partner, the aforesaid policy was purchased by the petitioner. In order to get the benefit of the exemption in the income tax assessment for the year 2005 2006, the petitioner firm sent the aforesaid policy claiming the amount of premium as an expenditure of the firm but the Chartered Accountant ('the CA') of the firm refused to accept the claim of getting the exemption of benefit under section 37 (1) of the Income Tax Act and told that penalty will be imposed by the Income Tax Department. Having received such an opinion, the petitioner firm informed the insurance company (respondent) that it could not get the benefit of section 37 (1) of the Income Tax Act. It was stated that this amounts to mis-representation on the part of the insurance company while persuading the petitioner firm to purchase the policy in question and alleging this as deficiency in service on the part of the insurance company, the petitioner firm filed the complaint in question before the District Forum praying that the amount of the policy/ compensation and other benefits be awarded to the firm against the insurance company.