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

Max New York Life Insurance Company Ltd. v/s Yash Construction & Land Development Co.

    First Appeal No. 741 of 2016

    Decided On, 01 July 2016

    At, National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC


    For the Appellant: Suman Bagga, Advocate. For the Respondent: -----

Judgment Text

This appeal is directed against the order of the State Commission dated 16.03.2016 whereby the said Commission has allowed an application filed by the complainant for impleadment of the legal heirs of the deceased insured. Since there is a delay of 57 days in filing the appeal, an application seeking condonation of delay has also been filed by the appellant.

2. The policy in question was taken by late Shri Sanjay Sawaliram and was later assigned by him to the complainant firm namely Yash Construction & Land Development Company. The claim lodged by the complainant firm having been repudiated, they approached the State Commission by way of a consumer complaint. The aforesaid application was filed during the pendency of the complaint seeking impleadment of the wife and children of the deceased.

3. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the wife and children of the deceased insured were let with no right in the policy after it had been assigned in favour of the complainant firm. She further submits that if the complaint was to be filed by the legal heirs of the deceased, it would be barred by limitation in which the amendment was allowed.

4. It is settled legal proposition at the stage of considering the amendments, the Court for that matter or any forum will not go into the merits of the averments sought to be made by way of the proposed amendment. The question whether the legal heirs of the deceased were left with any right in the policy or not after the said policy had been assigned in favour of the complainant firm is a matter which the appellant can argue before the State Commission, which will thereafter take an appropriate view on the said contention. As far as the limitation is concerned, the submission has to be examined by the State Commission, which in the first instance has to take an appropriate view on the same. If aggrieved from the view so taken, the appellant can avail such remedy as may be open to it in law.

5. For the reasons stated hereinabove, the appeal as well as application for condonat

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

ion of delay in filing the appeal are dismissed. It is however made clear that it would be open to the appellant to take all such objections and raise all such contentions as may be open to it in law before the State Commission.