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

2025 Supreme(Online)(SCDRC) 20814

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
KIDABHAI MADANBHAI PATEL – Appellant
Versus
LIC OF INDIA – Respondent
SC/24/CC/11/71



Petitioner Advocates:V M PANCHOLI ,Respondent Advocate: S R SHELAT

Details DD MM YY
Date of Judgment 17 05 2023
Date of filing 13 12 2011
Duration 04 05 11
IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION GUJARAT STATE, AHMEDABAD CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO. 71 OF 2011 Kikabhai Makanji Patel HUF through Karta Bharatbhai Kikabhai Patel. Aged : 46, Occupation: Business , Address: 86, Naherunagar Society, Nr. Somnath Temple, Parle Point, Surat. …Complainant versus

1. Life Insurance Corporation of India Surat Divisional Office Address: „Jivan Prakash” Muglisara, Branch No. 2/863, Surat – 395003.

2. Manager , Life Insurance Corporation of India Address: „Jivan Prakash” Muglisara, Branch No. 2/863, Surat – 395003. …Opponents Coram: Mr. Justice V.P. Patel, President Ms. A.C.Raval, Member Appearance: Mr. V. M. Pancholi, advocate for the Complainant Mr. P. R. Jani/ Ms. S.R.Shelat, advocate for the opponents.

ORDER: [By Ms. Archana C. Raval, Member]

1. The complainant has filed the Consumer Complaint under Section

12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short „the Act‟)

against the opponents claiming main relief which reads as under:

“( એ ) કીકાબાઈ ભકનજી ઩ટેર એચ . યુ . એપ . ના નાભની પરયમાદલા઱ી જીલનલીભા

. : , ઩ોરીવીનં ૮૬૦૨૯૮૧૪૩અન્લમેભ઱લા઩ા્ᕔયકભભાથં ીવાભાલા઱ાએખોટી

. , , |-

ગેયવ્માજફી અને ભનસ્લી યીતે કા઩ેર યકભ રૂ ૨૮૫૫૬૬૪ ક્રઈે ભની

%

તાયીખથીખયેખયચકુલણીનીતાયીખસધુ ીનાલાર્઴િક૧૫ રખે ને ાચઢેરાઅને ચઢતા વ્માજ વરશત પરયમાદીને ચકૂલી આ઩ે તેલો વાભાલા઱ાઓને હુકભ .

આ઩ળોજી

( ) . . . . . .

ફી વાભાલા઱ાઓપરયમાદીનેતા ૨૮૩૨૦૧૧થીતા ૧૦૧૧૨૦૧૧સધુ ીનું

. , , /- % . , , /-

રૂા ૯૬૩૫૦૩૬ ૧૨ રખે ે૨૨૬રદલવનુંરૂા ૭૧૫૮૯૦ વ્માજચકૂલી

.

આ઩ેતેલોવાભાલા઱ાઓનેહુકભઆ઩ળોજી

( )

વી વાભાલા઱ાઓના ઩્ᕌે ગબં ીય ફદે યકાયી અને વેલાભાં ્ᕌર્તને કાયણે શભો , , પરયમાદીને થમેર બાયે ળાયીરયક ભાનવીક ્ᕔાવ શયેાનગર્ત શાડભાયી ભાટે

. , , /-

વાભાલા઱ાઓવોનેરૂા૧૦૦૦૦૦ નુંલ઱તયચકુલેતેલી઩ણવાભાલા઱ાઓને

.

હુકભઆ઩ળોજી

( )

ડી નાભદાય પોયભના હુકભના ૩૦ રદલવભાં વાભાલા઱ાઓ નાભદાય પોયભના

.

હુકભનું઩ારનકયેતેલોવાભાલા઱ાનેર્નદેળઆ઩ળોજી

( ) .”

ઈ આપયીમાદનીએકંદયશકીકતભાંફીજીમોગ્મરાગેતેલીદાદઅ઩ાલળોજી

Case of the complainant:

2. It is the case of the complainant that Kikabhai Makanji Patel (HUF)

has obtained new Jivandhara Policy issued by opponents. Complainant has paid Rs.33,00,000/- as a single premium on 28/03/2001. The policy issued by opponent is annexed at page 8 with the complaint. As per the subject policy the complainant is entitled to get Rs. 96,35,036/- on 28/03/2011 i.e. on the maturity date of the policy. It has been stated that during the existence of the above policy, karta of HUF Kikabhai Makanji Patel died on 07/08/2003. The death certificate is annexed at page 12. It has been stated that on behalf of HUF the opponent was informed on 21/09/2004 about the death of the Karta of the HUF and also informed that after the death of Kikabhai Makanji Patel, shri Bharatbhai Kikabhai Patel will act as the karta of Kikabhai Makanji Patel (HUF). The opponent Insurance Company has noted the above change in the policy. (Ref. page 9). The said correction was carried out on 13/10/2004, after collecting requisite documents from the complainant.

3. Complainant has requested the opponent for the maturity amount on its due date of policy i.e. 28/03/2011. Complainant has issued letter dated 11/06/2011, 30/06/2011 and 10/08/2011 (annexed at page 14 to 17). The opponent replied to the complainant‟s letter by letter dated 16/08/2011 (page 18). It is stated therein that opponent has paid Rs.44,84,305/- (basic amount) and Rs.22,95,067/- (Interest) on 10/11/2011. Complainant states that the executive of the opponent has obtained the signature of the complainant on few blank papers. Opponents have only paid Rs. 70,34,380/- against the payable amount of Rs. 96,35,036/-. It has been stated that opponent has not paid Rs. 28,55,664/- though the opponent is liable to pay the same. Complainant has sent a letter dated 14/11/2011 (page 21) to the opponents, stating that the amount paid by the opponent has been accepted under the protest and not as a full and final settlement of the claim.

4. The Complainant has Produced list of documents as under:

Sr.

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
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top