w w w . L a w y e r S e r v i c e s . i n

Birla Sun Life Insurance Co. Ltd v/s Meena Devi

Company & Directors' Information:- BIRLA CORPORATION LIMITED [Active] CIN = L01132WB1919PLC003334

Company & Directors' Information:- SUN PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U24246RJ1984PTC003093

Company & Directors' Information:- G SUN INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U74899DL1995PTC071425

Company & Directors' Information:- SUN INDIA CORPORATION PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U65991TN1943PTC000994

    First Appeal No. 1520 of 2015

    Decided On, 07 February 2020

    At, Madya Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Bhopal


    For the Appellant: Deepesh Joshi, Advocate. For the Respondents: Vishnu Tiwari, Advocate.

Judgment Text

Shantanu S. Kemkar, Persident

1. This appeal arises out of the order dated 8.9.2015 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Morena (for short the “Forum”) in CC No. 149/2014 whereby the Forum has allowed the complaint filed by the respondent/complainant.

2. Brief facts necessary for disposal of the case are that the respondent had filed a complaint stating therein that her husband-Madansingh Rajput had obtained an insurance policy No. 005336402 from the appellant/Insurance Company for the sum assured of Rs. 16,00,000. It is stated that on 15.9.2012 insured Madansingh Rajput died. A claim for compensation was submitted before the appellant by the complainant, being nominee of the deceased with all the necessary documents. However, her claim was repudiated by the appellant vide letter dated 31.3.2014 on the ground that the insured had wrongly stated his income to be Rs. 1,50,000 p.a. whereas his yearly income was Rs. 15,000 p.a. only. Feeling aggrieved the respondent had filed a complaint before the Forum. The Forum after considering the pleadings and the evidence led by the parties allowed the complaint. Aggrieved, the appellant/Insurance Company has filed this appeal.

3. Learned Counsel for the appellant submits that the Forum has failed to consider the affidavit of Investigator Dipti Gulati, who had stated that the deceased was earning Rs. 60,000 per year and was not in the service of Jamuna Auto Industries Ltd. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the respondent has supported the impugned order. He argued that against the evidence submitted by the respondent/complainant establishing that there was no suppression about deceased’s income and in order to prove that the total income of the deceased was Rs. 15,000 p.a. and not Rs. 1,50,000 no evidence was led by the appellant. He argued that the Forum has rightly disbelieved the stand of the appellant/Insurance Company which was not supported by any cogent and acceptable evidence. He also argued that the affidavit of the Investigator was also not filed in original, but only a photocopy was filed which has rightly not been relied by the Forum.

4. We have considered the submissions made by learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record.

5. On going through the record and the impugned order it is revealed that to contradict the plea of the deceased that he was earning Rs. 1,50,000 p.a. no cogent or reliable evidence was submitted by the appellant/Insurance Company. The photocopy of the affidavit of the Investigator has also rightly not been taken into consideration by the Forum for dislodging the claim of the respondent/complainant. No affidavit of the Field Investigator who allegedly visited the place of employment of deceased has been filed but the photocopy of affidavit of his officer has been filed which is based on hears

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

ay as is based on the information given to her by the Filed Investigator. 6. In the circumstances, in our considered view the order passed by the Forum, being based on sound appreciation of evidence needs no interference. 7. The appeal fails and is hereby dismissed. Appeal dismissed.