SAHARA INDIA COMMERCIAL CORPORATION LTD. vs GOMTI DEVI

LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner and learned Counsel for opposite party No. 4 present. None is present for opposite parties 1 to 3 despite service. Shri Pyare Lal, husband of respondent No. 1 and father of complainant Nos. 2 and 3 deposited a sum of Rs. 10,000 in a branch of M/s. Sahara India Commercial Corporation Ltd. at Sikar on 28.11.2003 under the Sahara Swarn Yojana Scheme. A passbook was issued by the opposite parties. It contains some terms and conditions. The legal representatives of the policy holder were to get Rs. 1,50,000 in case his death occurred due to accident after three years and within a period of four years.

UNFORTUNAT ELY , Shri Pyare Lal expired on 30.9.2007 in accident which happened after a period of three years but before the expiry of four years of obtaining of the insurance policy. The information was given to the insurance company. The Insurance Company, Sikar Branch refused to pay the compensation. The opposite party took the following objection, viz. the information of death was not given within 15 days from the date of death, the information of death should be given to the insurance company before the last rites are performed and under special circumstances, it is mandatory to give information within 30 days from death. The complainants were fully aware of all these facts. The deceased -policy holder was not consumer because the death help, after the accident, is provided free of cost. The relevant documents, like FIR, death certificate, postmortem report, medical report, age certificate, claim forms, etc., were not deposited within 30 days. However, the same were provided subsequently. The Insurance Company had sent these papers to the National Insurance Company with whom it has got a link up. The National Insurance Company provided a cheque in the sum of Rs. 50,000 but the complainants refused to accept the same.

THE defence set up by the National Insurance Company, opposite party No. 3 is that they have entered into a contract with the opposite party Nos. 1 and 2. Therefore, they are liable to pay Rs. 50,000. The District Forum accepted the complaint against opposite party Nos. 1 and 2 and directed the opposite party Nos. 1 and 2 to pay a sum of Rs. 1,00,000 with all the benefits to the complainants due to the accidental death of Shri Pyare Lal. Rs. 5,000 as compensation and Rs. 2,000 as cost of litigation was also awarded to the complainants besides payment of interest @ 9% p.a.

AGGRIEVED by that order, the opposite party Nos. 1 and 2 approached the State Commission and the State Commission dismissed the appeal.

WE have heard the learned Counsel for the parties.

OUR attention is invited towards para 18 of the terms and conditions of the policy, which is reproduced as under - - "18. Accidental Death Benefit. In case of accidental death only, the nominee(s) of the deceased coupon holder shall be entitled for insurance compensation amount (as per terms and condition applicable) as per following chart - -

In option (B), the above benefit shall be applicable only after Rs. 1,00,000 advance amount is deposited in the company."

LEARNED Counsel for the petitioners has vehemently argued that Annexure 5 was not considered by the Fora below. This letter was written by M/s. Sahara India Pariwar to the National Insurance Company Limited, which mentions the following details about Shri Pyare Lal: You are requested to depute a Surveyor/Investigator under intimation to us."

THE National Insurance Company vide letter dated 9.11.2009 came to the conclusion that they were liable to pay Rs. 50,000 only to the legal representatives of late Shri Pyare Lal in Annexure 6 at serial No. 11.

ON the other hand, learned Counsel for the National Insurance Company has invited our attention towards certain correspondences. This letter dated 8.2.2005 has been written by Sahara India Pariwar. Its relevant portion runs as follows: "If the accident occurs after one year of opening Account - -

The National Insurance Company sent its reply. They did not agree to their suggestions to the following effect:

"II. If accident death occurs after one year of opening account.

On above point No. II, i.e. If accident death occurs after one year of opening account is not acceptable to us because at the time of issuance of policy only point I coverage was provided which may please be noted."

IT is thus clear that as per the policy, the petitioners are liable to pay Rs. 1,00,000 as ordered by the District Forum. The petitioners want to get rid of their liability. They are trying to involve the National Insurance Company unnecessarily. One should be a man of commitment. It is difficult to fathom why the National Insurance Company should pay the entire amount. The petitioners have made a vain attempt to lead the gullible people up the garden path. Consequently, we hereby dismiss the revision petition with costs of Rs. 10,000 under Section 26 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 payable to the complainant No. 1 through demand draft directly. It is made clear that the insurance company is also liable to pay a sum of Rs. 50,000. Rs. 50,000 be paid if not already paid. The petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 will pay Rs. 1,00,000 along with interest, litigation charges and compensation to the complainants as ordered by the District Forum. The said amount including costs, etc be paid to the decree holders within 60 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order otherwise it will carry interest @12% per annum from the date of expiry of 60 days.