Life Insurance Corporation of India vs MOHD.AAMIR

THIS is an appeal against the judgment and order dated 29.9.2001 passed by District Consumer Forum-Ist, Bareilly in Complaint Case No. 299 of 1995.

THE brief facts of the case are that the brother of the complainant had taken a policy of Rs. 2,00,000/- alonwith accidental benefits of which the amount payable becomes double. THE complainant''s brother Aneez used to drive jeep. On 17.5.1992, Aneez Ahmed, when he was going from Bareily to Badaun on the road near jungle, was murdered by cutting his head. THE report of the incidence was lodged by the complainant with Subhash Nagar Police Station on 18.5.1992 on the basis of which proceedings against the culprits were initiated. The complainant was the nominee in the life policy and he filed the claim on 16.7.1992 with the opposite party, Life Insurance Corporation of India alongwith necessary papers. Thereafter, the complainant was asked by the Insurance Corporation to file, by letter dated 7.9.1993, driving licence, final report etc. The complainant informed the Insurance Corporation that when the murder committed of the insured, the driving licence which was with him was taken away by the murderers and the driving licence could not be found on the spot of murder. As far as the final report was concerned, as the case was proceeding against the accused persons, the final report shall be filed later on. The opposite party again asked the complainant to submit the driving licence and it was also enquired if the final report has been filed by the police, a copy of the same be submitted. The complainant submitted a copy of the charge-sheet which was filed by the police. The complainant further informed the Insurance Company that the case is proceeding against the accused persons.

The Insurance Company informed the complainant vide letter dated 26.4.1995 that after the receipt of the driving licence the claim shall be considered. The complainant has filed this complaint for recovery of Rs. 4,00,000/- from the Insurance Corporation alongwith interest and compensation etc.

IN the written statement the opposite party, INsurance Corporation, has alleged that as his driving licence, charge-sheet and final report were necessary for deciding the claim and the same have not been provided, therefore, it was not possible to go into the facts of the case. The Life INsurance Corporation has not caused any inconvenience to the complainant. As the case is still pending before the Criminal Court, therefore, it is necessary that the judgment of the Court should be made available to the INsurance Corporation for deciding the claim. It further alleged that no compensation is payable to the complainant. It was further alleged that the insured has suppressed material facts and hence the claim of the complainant has been rightly repudiated. It is further alleged that the complainant was not receiving the income as stated by him in the claim form and did not own the vehicle. If the correct income would have been disclosed, then the deceased would not have been issued the policy.

THE parties led evidence before the learned District Forum who after considering the case of the parties, came to the conclusion that there was deficiency on behalf of the Life Insurance Corporation. Hence it directed the Insurance Corporation to pay a sum of Rs. 4,00,000/- along with 9% per annum interest to the complainant from 1.6.1992 till the date of payment. A sum of Rs. 1,000/- was also awarded as compensation. Aggrieved against the order of the learned District Forum, the opposite party Life Insurance Corporation has come in appeal and has challenged the correctness of the order passed by the District Forum. We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties.

LEARNED Counsel for the appellant has argued that the deceased has wrongly declared his income in the proposal form and he did not own any vehicle and it was wrongly mentioned in the proposal form. On this ground the learned Counsel for the opposite party has placed reliance on an agreement dated 4.5.1992 executed between Aneez Ahmed and Smt. Shahnaz Begum. According to the learned Counsel for the complainant in view of this agreement the deceased purchased one Maruti Van bearing registration No. UP25/5505 on 2.1.1992 in which it was agreed that Aneez Ahmed will have to pay a sum of Rs. 26,000/- in cash and a sum of Rs. 45,000/- will be paid through Narendra Hire Purchase Company in Barielly. Aneez Ahmed has paid a sum of Rs. 26,000/- in cash but the instalments have not been regularly paid to Narendra Hire Purchase Company. Therefore, there was a meeting between the parties on 4.5.1992, the date of the execution of the agreement. It was agreed that the cost of the jeep was Rs. 75,000/- out of which a sum of Rs. 38,000/- was due to Narendra Hire Purchase Company. A sum of Rs. 37,000/- was to be paid by the second party to the deceased and in this way a sum of Rs. 37,000/- was paid by the second party to Anees Ahmed. Thereafter this vehicle was transferred in the name of Shahnaz Begum and the agreement was executed.

A perusal of this agreement will go to show that this agreement was executed much after the insurance policy was taken. The policy was taken 28.3.1992 and this agreement was executed on 4.5.1992 by which this jeep was transferred to the second party. Before that the complainant was the owner of the jeep. In this respect a rejoinder affidavit was also filed by the complainant to bring this fact. There is no evidence on behalf of the Insurance Corporation to rebut this fact. Therefore, this is proved on record that on 28.3.1992 the deceased was the owner of the above mentioned jeep. Thus, it is proved on record that on the date of proposal form was filled, the deceased was the owner of the jeep. Hence this plea of the Insurance Company cannot be accepted.

The next contention of the learned Counsel for the Insurance Corporation/appellant is that the complaint is not maintainable on account of the fact that with respect to the claim the matter should be referred for arbitration in view of the Arbitration Clause in the agreement. Section 3 of the Consumer Protection Act provides that the remedy before the District Forum is an alternative in nature. Even if any other form of remedy is available, it is upto the consumer to choose the remedy. He can opt for arbitration in such a case or file a complaint before the District Forum. Therefore, this contention is not tenable.

THE learned Counsel for the appellant has further argued that the claimant is not entitled for any amount on account of the fact that necessary papers have not been furnished and the claim cannot be paid till the completion of the criminal proceedings pending before the Court against the accused persons. THE complainant has submitted to the Insurance Company a copy of the FIR and copy of the charge sheet, copy of the final report and the copy of the judgment is also sought for. When the charge sheet has been filed, then there is no need for filing any final report. A final report is submitted by the police to the Court after investigation under Section 173 of the Criminal Procedure Code. If the police find that no case is made out against the accused persons, then a report is submitted which is commonly known as ''final report''. If a case is made against the accused persons on the basis of evidence, then a report is submitted to the Court which is known as charge-sheet. When in the present case the police has submitted charge-sheet, there is no question of filing of final report. In the case of this nature the District Forum cannot await the judgment of the Criminal Court because the finding of the Criminal Court is no binding on the District Forum. The District Forum has to merely see that the death of an insured has taken place and whether the nominee is entitled for the claim or not. This fact is not to be seen in the Criminal Court. Therefore, the District Forum had jurisdiction to try the complaint even if a criminal case pending before the Magistrate has not been concluded. In the present case we find that there is a report of the Investigator also. The report of the Investigator is paper No. 45 of the paper-book and is dated 3.9.1992. After mentioning the facts in the report, he has concluded that on the basis of written as well as oral evidence he has reached the conclusion that the claim is true and should be paid. The Insurance Company, inspite of this clear and categorical report of the Investigator, repudiated the claim of the complainant without any cogent reason. Therefore, the complainant has been able to prove his case and the appellant could not show any ground on which the judgment of the District Forum can be rejected. The appeal is, therefore, liable to be dismissed. ORDER The appeal is dismissed and the judgment and order of the learned District Forum are confirmed. The appellant shall pay a sum of Rs. 2,000/- as cost of appeal. Let compliance of the order be made within a period of two months from the date of this order. Let copy as per rules be made available to the parties. Appeal dismissed.