DIRECTOR OF INSURANCE Vs. RATHOD LAKHMANBHAI MULJIBHAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By these Revision Petitions, under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short "the Act"), the Director, Directorate of Insurance, Government of Gujarat, one of the Opposite Parties in the Complaints under the Act, calls in question the correctness and legality of different orders, all dated 18.10.2016, passed by the Gujarat State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission at Ahmedabad (for short "the State Commission") in CMAs No. 944, 949 and 950 of 2015. By the impugned orders, the State Commission has declined to condone the delay, ranging between 138 and 150 days, in filing the Appeals, preferred by the Petitioner herein, and consequently dismissed the same.

(2.) The Appeals had been preferred by the Petitioner against the orders dated 24.06.2015, 31.07.2015 and 15.07.2015, passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum at Junagarh (for short "the District Forum") in Complaint Cases No. 6, 83 and 71 of 2015 respectively. By the said orders, while allowing the Complaints, preferred by the Complainants, Respondents in these Revision Petitions, against the Opposite Parties, including the Petitioner, for not honouring the insurance claims made by them, the District Forum had directed the Petitioner to pay the assured amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- to each of the Complainants, along with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing of the Complaints, besides Rs. 5,000/- each towards litigation costs.

(3.) In these cases, the Complainant in Complaint Case No. 6 of 2015 had met with a vehicular accident on 22.08.2013, resulting in amputation of his right leg and some other grievous injuries, while the husbands of the Complainants in other Complaints, i.e. Complaint Cases No. 83 and 71 of 2015, had passed away, on account of vehicular accidents on 19.07.2014 and 04.04.2014 respectively. Being the beneficiary/nominee of the assured(s), who were holding insurance coverage of Rs. 1,00,000/- each, under the State of Gujarat Accident Group Insurance Scheme for unorganized labourers, the Complainants had preferred their respective claims, along with the relevant papers, with the Petitioner herein, through the other Opposite Parties. However, the insurance amount was not paid by the Petitioner. Under the circumstances, the afore-noted Complaints came to be filed before the District Forum, wherein the Complainants had, inter alia, prayed for a direction to the Petitioner to pay to them the aforesaid insurance amount.