IMPORTANT POINT
Without formal cancellation insurance policy must be deemed to be subsisting.

S.C. Vyas, President—This appeal is directed against order dated 21.07.10, passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Surguja-Ambikapur (hereinafter called “District Forum” for short) in complaint case No.92/09, whereby the appellant Company has been directed to pay Rs.5,00,000/- to the complainants, which was the sum assured, in the event of accidental death of the insured employee of OP No.3 SECL, along with interest @ 6% p.a. w.e.f. date of order within a period of one month from the date of award and Rs.1,000/- as cost of litigation. Some directions regarding distribution ,of awarded amount among the complainants and deposit of some .portion of the award in the name of complainant No.3, in a fixed deposit scheme of some Nationalized Bank, till he attains the age of maturity , have also been given.

2. It is not in dispute that Anwarulhak was an employee of the SECL and was insured by the appellant insurance company, under Group Janta Personal Accident Insurance Policy, issued in favour of employees of SECL for a period from 16.10.1999 to 15.10.2009. The premium was deposited from the salary of the employee. Case of the complainant before District Forum was that, Anwarulhak died an accidental death and the insurance company failed to pay the sum assured in spite of claim preferred by the complainants. When consumer complaint was filed before District Forum, then the same was contested by the insurance company inter alia on the ground that the policy in question was already cancelled and the matter is pending before High Court, so it was not in obligation to pay any amount in respect of death of the deceased insured.

3. The District Forum did not agree with the defence of the insurance company and allowed the complaint, as aforesaid in paragraph No.1.

4. After having heard the arguments advanced by both parties and perused the record of the District Forum, we are satisfied that the policy in question was never cancelled by giving any personal notice to the deceased insured or by refunding pro rata premium, so the insurance cover was available to him at the time of his death. From the record, it also appears that he died an accidental death and in view of this, we find that the order passed by the District Forum, for payment of sum assured, suffers no infirmity and needs to be sustained.

5. So far as question of grant of interest is concerned, it also appears appropriate looking to the Bank rate and as it has been awarded from the date of order itself.

6. It has been pointed out by learned counsel for respondents that SECL has not been impleaded in the appeal, whereas it was OP No.3 before the District Forum. From the record we also find that the SECL was OP No.3 before District Forum and it has not been made party before us. We further find that Surguja Branch of the insurance company was a party before District Forum; whereas before us Divisional Manager, Bilaspur has filed the appeal through Divisional Manager Korba of the insurance company, without giving any description that Surguja Branch of the company comes under whose territorial jurisdiction. Thus, we find that the appeal suffers from the defect of non-joinder of necessary parties,

7. In view of the aforesaid, we find that the appeal has got no merits and is otherwise also not maintainable on account of non-joinder of necessary parties, so the same is dismissed.

*********