POST MASTER vs BABU RAO

THIS revision petition has been filed by the petitioners/OP against the order dated 19.12.2012 passed by the Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Mumbai, Circuit Bench at Aurangabad (in short, ''the State Commission'') in Appeal No. 483/08 - The Post Master and Ors. Vs. Shri Baburao and Anr. by which, while dismissing appeal, order of District forum allowing complaint was upheld.

BRIEF facts of the case are that complainants/Respondents are the husband and wife. Their son Pralhad obtained Rural Postal Life Insurance Policy for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/ and deposited premium of Rs.380/ on 4.3.2003. Pralhad died on 31.3.2003 and in the said policy, the nominee was his wife Smt. Sangita Pralhad Hambarde. Sangita filed insurance claim with the OPs/petitioners which was repudiated on the ground that policy bond was not issued to deceased Pralhad and there was no any contract. Complainants served notice on the OPs, as claim was not settled. Alleging deficiency on the part of OP, complainant filed complaint before District Forum. OP resisted complaint and submitted that as there was no existence of any contract at the time of death of Pralhad and as policy bond was not issued to him, Pralhad cannot be deemed to have been insured and prayed for dismissal of complaint. Learned District Forum after hearing both the parties allowed complaint and directed OPs to pay Rs.1,00,000/ along with 9% p.a. interest and further awarded Rs.5,000/ towards mental agony and Rs.1,000/ towards cost of litigation. Appeal filed by the petitioners was dismissed by learned State Commission by the impugned order against which, this revision petition has been filed along with application for condonation of delay. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner at admission stage and perused record.

LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner has filed application for condonation of delay of 19 days. For the reasons mentioned in the application, we allow the application for condonation of delay of 19 days in filing revision petition.

LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner submitted that order of District Forum be set aside only to the extent of the word ''nominee'' mentioned in para 3 of order of District Forum and submitted that ''nominee '' word may be deleted from the order of District Forum. Perusal of record clearly reveals that Pralhad appointed his wife Smt. Sangita as nominee and claim filed by her was repudiated by petitioners and afterwards complainants who are parents of deceased filed complaint before District Forum which was allowed. Thus, it becomes clear that Sangita is not only nominee, but wife and legal heir of deceased. Learned District Forum rightly observed in Clause III as under: "The Applicants should file Succession Certificate to this forum & as per the Succession Certificate orders of division of amount of insurance will be issued & after issuance of such orders the amount will be paid to applicants & nominee."

AS complainants and Sangita wife of the deceased are legal heirs of the deceased, learned District Forum rightly observed that division of amount of insurance will be made as per Succession Certificate obtained by the petitioner ".

WE do not find any illegality, irregularity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order and revision petition is liable to be dismissed at admission stage. Consequently, revision petition filed by the petitioners is dismissed at admission stage with no order as to costs.