SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

2007 (1) CPR 318
H.P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
SHIMLA
Arun Kumar Goel (Retd.), President; Narinder Singh Thakur and Saroj Sharma, Members
Life Insurance Corporation
of India—Appellant
versus
Jai Parkash—Respondent
Appeal No. 87/2005
Decided on 7-11-2006

Advocates:
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Appellant:Mr. G.D. Sharma, Advocate.
For the Respondent:Mr. Dheeraj Bansal, Advocate.

IMPORTANT POINT
Rate of interest awarded on outstanding amount needs to be reduced from 12% p.a. to 9% p.a.

Headnote:Insurance claim—Rate of interest—Double accident benefit policy—Interest awarded by District Forum @ 12% p.a. reduced to 9% p.a.—Appeal allowed partly in favour of appellant.

       Facts of the Case:

       A)Only question involved in this appeal is whether insurance policy issued by appellant insuring life of ‘DS’ was a double accident policy or not.

       B)The policy in question was for a period of 20 years and annual premium was Rs. 1,600/- per year and the sum assured was Rs. 25,000/- . It was not disputed that sum assured had to be paid over the period of insurance i.e. 20 years by ‘DS’ because he had got himself insured for Rs. 25,000/-, therefore, the sum of Rs. 25,000/- was to be distributed in a manner in quarterly installments. In such situation, the quarterly premium comes to Rs. 312.50 ps, whereas premium being charged was admittedly Rs. 400/- quarterly. The appellant failed to explain why after paying Rs. 32,000 over a span of 20 years, assured would receive Rs. 25,000/-. In such circumstances, the District Forum was rightly held that it was a ‘double accident benefit policy.’ However, the rate of interest awarded needs to be reduced from 12% p.a. to 9% p.a. Appeal allowed to that extent.

       Result: Appeal partly allowed.

ORDER (ORAL)

Arun Kumar Goel, (Retd.) President—Only question involved in this appeal is whether the policy of insurance issued by the appellant insuring the life of late Sh. Davinder Sharma was a double accident policy or not. According to respondent it was a policy which covered double accident benefit, therefore, he was entitled to double the amount of the sum assured together with other benefits in terms of the policy. This position is seriously contested by Mr. Sharma, learned counsel for the appellant—Life Insurance Corporation of India. By referring to Annexure R 1 he vehemently urged that the policy in question was without DAB and Clause 10 thereof had been scored off. Therefore, according to him impugned order deserves to be set aside as no double accident policy had been issued by his client in this case.

2. Learned counsel for the respondent further clarified that this is a case of double accident benefit policy so his client could not be deprived of the amount ordered by the District Forum below, in addition to the amount already paid by the: appellant.

3. Now the dispute starts. Therefore, we have felt it necessary refer to the facts which are there on the complaint file. Annexure R-1 is the copy of insurance policy, its date of commencement is 15.6.1998. Its Table and Plan was 75.20, sum assured was Rs. 25,000. Premium payable was quarterly by 15th, Installment of quarterly premium payable was Rs. 400. Policy was to mature on 15.6.2018 and last payment was to be made on 15.3.2018.

4. From the narration of these facts it is clear that the policy was for a period of 20 yeas and annual premium was 1,600 per year. After having examined the record and particularly the money back plan, table 75.20 premium amounting to DAB quarterly was Rs. 400 in the case of a person aged 17 years. We may also notice here that it was not disputed that the sum assured had to be paid over the period of insurance, i.e. 20 years in this cage by the deceased Davinder Sharma. Because he had got himself insured for Rs. 25,000 for a period of 20 years, therefore, sum of Rs. 25,000 was to be distributed in a manner in quarterly instalment so that this total amount was paid in a span of 20 years. In such a situation the quarterly premium comes to Rs. 312.50, whereas premium being charged in the instant case was admittedly Rs. 400 quarterly. Why after paying Rs. 32,000 over a span of 20 years he would receive Rs. 25,000 plus bonus and other benefits accrued on it, could not be explained on behalf of the appellant.

5. Faced with this situation Mr. Sharma prayed for adjournment for seeking instructions in the matter. On the facts and documents before us as also keeping in view the pleadings of the parties prayer made by Mr. Sharma has been declined by us, as we feel that on the basis of material on record we are prima facie satisfied that it was a case of double accident benefit policy issued the appellant and for that extra premium was being charged as narrated hereinabove.

6. At this stage Mr. Sharma learned counsel for the appellant urged that interest allowed is @ 12% per annum needs to be reduced. Keeping in view the trend being normally followed by this Commission, National Commission and Hon’ble Supreme Court, though this prayer is opposed by Mr. Bansal, however, we feel that interest needs to be reduced from 12 % per annum to 9% per annum on the outstanding amount. Ordered accordingly.

7. No other point is urged.

In view of the aforesaid discussion this appeal is partly allowed, thereby modifying the impugned order passed by the District Forum below, in Consumer complaint No. 79/2002, dated 30.11.2004 holding that interest only is reduced from 12 % to 9% per annum. Rest of the order passed by the District Forum below is upheld. No costs.

All interim orders passed from time to time shall stand vacated forthwith.

Office will make available a copy of this order to the parties free of costs as per rules.

Appeal partly allowed.

*******





Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top