LAWS(NCD)-2014-9-115

ATAM PARKASH Vs. RELIANCE GENERAL INS. CO. LTD.

Decided On September 02, 2014
ATAM PARKASH Appellant
V/S
Reliance General Ins. Co. Ltd. Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner against the order dated 31.01.2012 passed by the Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Panchkula (in short, 'the State Commission') in Appeal No. 806 of 2011 Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Atam Parkash by which, while allowing appeal, order of District Forum allowing complaint was set aside.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that complainant/petitioner's wife Sunder Devi was running a grocery shop and she died on 14.12.2008 on account of fire in the grocery shop. Complainant informed about the death of Sunder Devi to OP No. 1, 2 & 3/Respondent No. 2, 3 & 4 and demanded compensation under Rajiv Gandhi Parivar Bima Yojna Scheme. OP 2 to 4 remitted claim papers of the complainant to OP No. 4/Respondent No. 1 on 11.3.2010, but as claim was not paid, alleging deficiency on the part of OPs, complainant filed complaint before District Forum. OP No. 1, 2 & 3 resisted complaint and submitted that they have remitted claim papers to OP No. 4 on 11.3.2010, hence, complaint may be dismissed against them. OP No. 4 resisted complaint and submitted that complainant neither purchased insurance policy from OP No. 4, nor paid any premium and aforesaid Rajiv Gandhi Parivar Bima Yojna Scheme is a social benefit policy signed between the Government of Haryana and the OP No. 4. It was submitted that documents about the death were received by OP No. 1 in March, 2010, whereas as per Condition No.1 of the policy, intimation should have been received within one month and it was the violation of the terms of policy; hence no claim was payable and prayed for dismissal of complaint. Learned District Forum after hearing both the parties allowed complaint and directed OP no. 4 to pay Rs.1,00,000/- with 9% p.a. interest and further awarded Rs.1,000/- cost. Appeal filed by the OP No. 4 was allowed by learned State Commission vide impugned order against which, this revision petition has been filed.

(3.) Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused record.