The District Forum has jurisdiction to independently decide on insurance claims, and ongoing criminal proceedings do not prevent the payment of a valid claim.

Mr. Justice K.C. Bhargava, President—This is an appeal against the judgment and order dated 29.9.2001 passed by District Consumer Forum-Ist, Bareilly in Complaint Case No. 299 of 1995.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the brother of the complainant had taken a policy of Rs. 2,00,000/- alonwith accidental benefits of which the amount payable becomes double. The complainant’s brother Aneez used to drive jeep. On 17.5.1992, Aneez Ahmed, when he was going from Bareily to Badaun on the road near jungle, was murdered by cutting his head. The report of the incidence was lodged by the complainant with Subhash Nagar Police Station on 18.5.1992 on the basis of which proceedings against the culprits were initiated.

3. The complainant was the nominee in the life policy and he filed the claim on 16.7.1992 with the opposite party, Life Insurance Corporation of India alongwith necessary papers. Thereafter, the complainant was asked by the Insurance Corporation to file, by letter dated 7.9.1993, driving licence, final report etc. The complainant informed the Insurance Corporation that when the murder committed of the insured, the driving licence which was with him was taken away by the murderers and the driving licence could not be found on the spot of murder. As far as the final report was concerned, as the case was proceeding against the accused persons, the final report shall be filed later on. The opposite party again asked the complainant to submit the driving licence and it was also enquired if the final report has been filed by the police, a copy of the same be submitted. The complainant submitted a copy of the charge-sheet which was filed by the police. The complainant further informed the Insurance Company that the case is proceeding against the accused persons.

4. The Insurance Company informed the complainant vide letter dated 26.4.1995 that after the receipt of the driving licence the claim shall be considered. The complainant has filed this complaint for recovery of Rs. 4,00,000/- from the Insurance Corporation alongwith interest and compensation etc.

5. In the written statement the opposite party, Insurance Corporation, has alleged that as his driving licence, charge-sheet and final report were necessary for deciding the claim and the same have not been provided, therefore, it was not possible to go into the facts of the case. The Life Insurance Corporation has not caused any inconvenience to the complainant. As the case is still pending before the Criminal Court, therefore, it is necessary that the judgment of the Court should be made available to the Insurance Corporation for deciding the claim. It further alleged that no compensation is payable to the complainant.

6. It was further alleged that the insured has suppressed material facts and hence the claim of the complainant has been rightly repudiated. It is further alleged that the complainant was not receiving the income as stated by him in the claim form and did not own the vehicle. If the correct income would have been disclosed, then the deceased would not have been issued the policy.

7. The parties led evidence before the learned District Forum who after considering the case of the parties, came to the conclusion that there was deficiency on behalf of the Life Insurance Corporation. Hence it directed the Insurance Corporation to pay a sum of Rs. 4,00,000/- along with 9% per annum interest to the complainant from 1.6.1992 till the date of payment. A sum of Rs. 1,000/- was also awarded as compensation.

8. Aggrieved against the order of the learned District Forum, the opposite party Life Insurance Corporation has come in appeal and has challenged the correctness of the order passed by the District Forum.

9. We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties.

10. Learned Counsel for the appellant has argued that the deceased has wrongly declared his income in the proposal form and he did not own any vehicle and it was wrongly mentioned in the proposal form. On this