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



Birla Sun Life Insurance Company Limited & Others v/s Sunita


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

Company & Directors' Information:- O LIFE PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U52399PN2013PTC146147

Company & Directors' Information:- SUNITA INDIA PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U67120WB1983PTC035866

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

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

Company & Directors' Information:- SUNITA PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U29290MH1973PTC017081

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

    First Appeal No. 1489 of 2016

    Decided On, 23 January 2020

    At, Madya Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Bhopal

    By, THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHANTANU S. KEMKAR
    By, PRESIDENT
    By, THE HONOURABLE DR.(MRS.) MONIKA MALIK & THE HONOURABLE MR. PRABHAT PARASHAR
    By, MEMBER

    For the Appellants: Rajesh Giri, Learned Counsel. For the Respondent: Vishnu Tiwari, Learned Counsel.



Judgment Text


Shantanu S. Kemkar

1. This appeal arises out of order dated 02.09.2016 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Morena (for short ‘Forum’) in C.C.No.21/2016 whereby the Forum has allowed the complaint and direct the appellant/opposite party to pay compensation of Rs.1,30,000/- for one policy and Rs.10,00,000/- for another policy totaling Rs.11,30,000/- with interest @ 9% p.a. from 14.12.2015 till payment. In addition, Rs.1,500/- has been awarded as costs.

2. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant though filed written statement in the Forum but the same having been filed after 45 days, the Forum has not taken into consideration and passed the impugned order. He submits that the entire case of the respondent is based on incorrect facts as the insured was falsely pleaded to be died as there was no such person resident of that place. He submits that had the aforesaid facts been taken into consideration, which were pleaded in the reply, the result would have been different. He submits that there is ample evidence in possession of the appellant to support their case that the complaint and the claim is based on fraud.

3. On the contrary, learned counsel for respondent supported the impugned order. He submits that the Forum has rightly not allowed the reply of the appellant to be taken on record and rightly passed the impugned order.

4. Having considered the rival contentions and having gone through the impugned order and the record we are of the view that for just and fair adjudication of the dispute between the parties it is necessary to take consideration of the reply and documents filed by the appellant.

5. In view of the aforesaid, we set-aside the impugned order and remand the matter to the Forum for taking a decision afresh in accordance with law after taking into consideration the reply and documents filed by the appellant. Having considered that the appellant has filed reply after 45 days and the matter is prolonged because of their negligence, we deem it appropriate to award cost of Rs.10,000/- to be payable by the appellant to the respondent on or before the next date of hearing.

6. P

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

arties are directed to appear before the Forum on 27.02.2020. 7. Parties are also at liberty to file further affidavits in evidence, if so desire. 8. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the appeal is disposed of.
O R