IMPORTANT POINT
Petitioner forwarded documents concerning insurance claim to National Insurance Company Ltd. after about four years, this itself show deficiency in services and grave negligence on part of Petitioner.

J. M. Malik, Presiding Member—Smt. Santosh Devi, grandmother of Ms. Jahanvi, the complainant, deposited a sum of Rs.30,000 under Sahara Rajat Yojana floated by Sahara India Commercial Corporation Ltd.-opposite party. In the Scheme, it was mentioned that in case of death consequent upon accident for one year from 13.8.2004, a sum of Rs.1,00,000 against Rs.10,000 each would be paid after the accident to the LRs. Unfortunately, the complainant passed away in accident on 5.1.2007.

2. The complainant deposited all the receipts and claimed the insurance benefit. The opposite party refused to pay the said claim. Consequently, she filed a complaint before the District Forum for payment of the compensation against Sahara India Commercial Corporation Ltd.-opposite party No.1 and National Insurance Company Ltd.-opposite party No.2.

3. The defense set up by the opposite party No.1 was that the complaint was filed in the year 2011, therefore, it was barred by time. It also transpired that in the policy obtained by the insured she had nominated her other daughter Kumari Jyoti who did not file any claim.

4. The insurance company, opposite party No.2, pleaded that the claim before them was submitted at a late stage, therefore, the complaint was time barred and it was not liable to pay the amount.

5. The District Forum directed that the complainants would get the total amount of Rs.3,00,000 along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing till full and final realization from both the opposite parties jointly and severally. Both the opposite parties were directed to pay Rs.2,500 as compensation and cost of complaint.

6. Aggrieved by that order, Sahara India Commercial Corporation Ltd. and National Insurance Company Ltd. filed separate appeals before the State Commission. The State Commission modified the order and absolved the insurance company of the liability and directed that the entire amount be paid by Sahara India Commercial Corporation Ltd. to complainant Ms. Jahanvi and Kumari Jyoti to the extent of 50% and would pay the compensation in the sum of Rs.50,000.

7. Aggrieved by that order, Sahara India Commercial Corporation Ltd. has preferred this revision petition. The counsel for the petitioners vehemently argued that they are not the insurance company and they are not liable to pay the said amount. He further contends that there is no negligence or deficiency in service on their part.

8. I am unable to locate substance in these arguments. The information of the death was given to the opposite party No.1 on 3.2.2007. All the documents were also deposited. In this context, letter exhibited as E8 was produced on the record. It stands proved that the documents were deposited with the opposite party No.1 within 30 days from the date of death of the insured. It is, however, surprising to note that the petitioner Sahara India Commercial Corporation Ltd. forwarded those documents concerning the insurance claim to the National Insurance Company Ltd. on 21.2.2011 after about four years. This itself goes to show deficiency in the services and grave negligence on the part of the Sahara India Commercial Corporation Ltd. It is difficult to understand why did the Sahara India Commercial Corporation Ltd. sit over the above said documents and procrastinated the matter. The State Commission also came to the correct conclusion that she is entitled to Rs.3,00,000 i.e. Rs.1,00,000 on each and every receipt. The order passed by the State Commission cannot be faulted. The revision petition is without merit and the same is hereby dismissed.

Revision dismissed