The main legal point established in the judgment is that the insurance cover under the bond was valid only for the original allottee, and the contract for insurance was void due to misrepresentation and mistake.

Mr. Justice N.K. Jain, President—Both these appeals (Nos. 966/01 and 1010/01) filed under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986, arise from the same order dated 31.5.2001 passed by the District Forum, Shahdol in complaint case No. 31/1999, directing appellant-opposite parties to pay to the complainant insured (respondent No. 1 herein) sum of Rs. 50,000/- with interest and costs.

2. Respondent-Neeraj Katare on 31.7.1996 had purchased a bond called “ENBEE BOND” floated by ENBEE PLANTATION LTD. the appellant in appeal No. 1010/01, in collaboration with New India Assurance Company Ltd., the appellant in appeal No. 966/01. The bond with the face value of Rs. 6,000/- and having 5 years term was issued under an investment scheme which also provided insurance cover for accidental death/permanent disablement, to the insured-investor. It also had provision for nomination.

3. Respondent-Neeraj Katare while making application for issuance of bond had nominated his brother Dheeraj Katare (since dead) as his nominee. However, in the column meant for insurance, the name of Dheeraj Katare was mentioned as the person insured and the investor-respondent named himself as the nominee of his insured brother. Said Dheeraj Katare, it appears, met with an accident on 31.7.1996 and died on 1.8.1996. The respondent-complainant submitted his claim with the appellants for payment of the insured money of Rs. 50,000/- which was, however, repudiated by both the appellants on the ground that under the scheme, the insurance cover was available only to the investor i.e. complainant himself. Aggrieved by the said repudiation, the complainant approached the District Forum, Shahdol for awardment of the said amount of insurance with compensation and costs.

4. The complaint was resisted by the opposite parties mainly on the ground that as per terms and conditions of the scheme under which the bond was issued, the insurance cover was available only to the investor himself and not to his nominee. It was further contended that Shahdol Forum had no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint as the Company issuing the said bond did not carry any business nor had any branch office at Shahdol. The cause of action also did not arise at Shahdol as the bond in question was issued in Jabalpur.

5. The Forum below after taking evidence of both the parties, not only overruled the objection raised by opposite parties regarding territorial jurisdiction, but also held them guilty for deficiency in service and ordered for payment of insurance money with compensation and costs, thus giving rise to these appeals.

6. We have heard Mr. R.C. Sobhani and Mr. Deepesh Joshi, learned Counsel for the appellants and Mr. R.K. Sengar, learned Counsel for the respondent No. 1.

7. The main contention of the learned Counsel for the appellants is that the insurance cover under the bond was available only to the holder of the bond not to his nominee. The complainant-respondent who was the holder of the bond could not have in the application form entered name of late Dheeraj Katare as the person insured. The initial acceptance of the proposal was obviously under mistake of fact as to the identity of the person insured and, therefore, no valid agreement of insurance came into existence so as to entitle the complainant to claim insurance money on account of death of his brother-Dheeraj Katare.

8. As against it, the Counsel for respondent-complainant contended that the appellants having accepted the said proposal cannot now resile therefrom and repudiate the claim of the complainant. It was further submitted that under the scheme there was no bar against insurance being provided to the nominee of the bond holder.

9. Along with the complaint the complainant has filed details of the insurance issued by appellant-New India Assurance Company Ltd. under the ENBEE bond scheme. It is significant to note that at serial No. 2 of the conditions of this policy document, it is clearly stated t