Skip to content


New India Assurance Company Limited and Another Vs. Rekha and Another - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtHaryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Panchkula
Decided On
Case NumberFirst Appeal No. 351 of 2014
Judge
AppellantNew India Assurance Company Limited and Another
RespondentRekha and Another
Excerpt:
.....order dated february 21st, 2014 passed by district consumer disputes redressal forum (for short district forum), gurgaon. 3. randhir, aged about 27 years son of rekha-complainant (respondent no.1) died in a road accident on february 25th, 2005. the first information report no.26 (exhibit c-2) was immediately recorded in police station, pataudi district gurgaon. postmortem examination of the deceased was conducted vide report exhibit c-3. the deceased left behind the complainant, that is, his wife aged about 24 years and a minor daughter aged about three months and fifteen days. his widow rekha filed an application before the social justice and empowerment department, haryana to grant her rs.1.00 lac as per œch. devi lal jan suraksha bima yojna? popularly known as œdevi.....
Judgment:

Nawab Singh, President (Oral):

1. Delay of 11 days in filing of the appeal is condoned.

2. This appeal has been filed by The New India Assurance Company Limited-opposite party (for short Assurance Company) against the order dated February 21st, 2014 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (for short District Forum), Gurgaon.

3. Randhir, aged about 27 years son of Rekha-complainant (respondent No.1) died in a road accident on February 25th, 2005. The First Information Report No.26 (Exhibit C-2) was immediately recorded in Police Station, Pataudi District Gurgaon. Postmortem Examination of the deceased was conducted vide report Exhibit C-3. The deceased left behind the complainant, that is, his wife aged about 24 years and a minor daughter aged about three months and fifteen days. His widow Rekha filed an application before the Social Justice and Empowerment Department, Haryana to grant her Rs.1.00 lac as per œCh. Devi Lal Jan Suraksha Bima Yojna? popularly known as œDevi Rakshak? (for short the scheme), issued by the Social Justice and Empowerment Department, Haryana vide notification No.1076-SW(4)-2004 dated 29thApril, 2004.

4. The Government of Haryana executed a Memorandum of Understanding on dated October 25th, 2004 with the Assurance Company to indemnify the government in paying the amount of compensation to the family of the deceased in case of death in accident.

5. The Assurance Company did not pay the compensation to the respondent-complainant and repudiated her claim on the ground that œthe deceased person is not head of the family as per ration card. As this policy covers only head of the family, hence this claim is not maintainable.?

6. Complainant filed complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 before the District Forum and the same was accepted by impugned order.

7. As per the policy it is not expected that the deceased should be head of the family as per the Ration Card. The scheme envisaged that bread earner of the family was covered under the policy. It is not in dispute that the deceased was the bread earner of his family. On the other hand, nothing contrary to the evidence produced by the complainant was led by the Assurance Company. Thus, the argument raised by the learned counsel for the appellants is devoid of merits and is therefore repelled.

8. In this view of the matter, the order passed by the District Forum requires no interference. Hence, the appeal is dismissed. The appellants are directed to pay the insured amount of Rs.1.00 lac to the respondent-complainant alongwith interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of death of deceased-Randhir, that is, February 25th, 2005 till its realization. The compliance of this order be made within 15 days from the date of receipt of this order under intimation to this Commission.

9. The statutory amount of Rs.25,000/- deposited at the time of filing the appeal be refunded to the respondent No.1 - complainant against proper receipt and identification in accordance with rules, after the expiry of period of appeal/revision, if any.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //