GATTUPALLI ALIVELAMMA @ ALIVENAMMA Vs. BRANCH MANAGER/DIVISIONAL MANAGER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge in this Revision Petition, under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short "the Act"), by the Complainant, is to the order dated 10.12.2013 passed by the Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission at Hyderabad (for short "the State Commission") in First Appeal No.531 of 2012. By the order impugned, the State Commission has overturned the order dated 19.01.2012, passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kadapa (for short "the District Forum") in Complaint No.74 of 2011. By the said order, the District Forum had accepted the Complaint filed by the Petitioner herein, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the New India Assurance Company Limited (for short "the Insurance Company") in not paying the compensation claimed on the death of her husband, namely, late Sh. Gattupalli Alivelamma @ Alivenamma, under the Group Janata Personal Accident Insurance Policy. The said policy had been obtained by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh for employees working in the State Judiciary, including the Judges. The deceased was working as a Process Server in Junior Civil Judge Court, Jammalamadugu. The District Forum had directed the Insurance Company to pay to the Complainant a sum of 50,000/- as the assured sum under the policy; 5,000/- towards mental agony; 3,000/- towards deficiency in service and 2,000/- towards litigation costs.

(2.) The learned Amicus Curiae submits that the State Commission has committed a material irregularity in entertaining the additional evidence, viz., copies of the cheque dated 24.01.2009; copy of the letter issued by the Registrar (Administration) of the High Court and some other documents and in relying on the said evidence without affording any opportunity to the Complainant in this behalf. It is argued that the said additional evidence was filed by the Insurance Company in support of its stand that the Petitioner was not entitled to any compensation under the said Group Personal Accident Policy on certain new grounds, which were not pleaded in its Written Version.

(3.) Per contra, learned Counsel appearing for the Insurance Company, while supporting the order impugned in this Revision Petition, has submitted that as per the said additional documents, the policy in question had in fact been cancelled and the premium received was refunded to the High Court and therefore, claim under the policy could not be entertained.