Before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (constituted under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019)

of Telangana, Eruvaka Building, Khairathabad at Hyderabad FAN O.352O F 2017A GAINSTC CN O.1 00 OF 2016 ON THE FILE OF DISTRICTF ORUM,W ARANGAL Between Bajaj Allianz Life Insuranee Co., Lid. Represented by its Branch Manager, Branch office at 1 Ploor, Loyola Arcade, Subedari, Hanamkonda, Warangal, Through Legal Manager, Bajaj Allianz Life lnsurance Co., Ltd., 4th Ploor, NE Plaza, Erramanzil, Hyderabad.

Appellant/Opposite party And

1) The Telegraph Engineering Employees Staff Mutually Aided Cooperative Credit Society Lid., Having its registered office at H.No.11-23-3, SSS Towers, L.B. Nagar, Warangal.

Represented by its President.

2 Gera Shiva Kumari W/o late Gera Sudharshan, Aged 41 years, Occupation : Housewife, R/o Peddapally town and mandal, Karimnagar district.

Respondents/Complainants Counscl for the Appellant Sri Syed Moinuddin Counsel for the Respondents Sri B.Ram Mohan cORAM *****

Hon'ble Sri Justice MSK Jaiswal President and Smt Meena Ramanathan Member *****

Tuesday, the Nineteenth day of July Two Thousand Twenty Two Oral Order:

**

This is an appeal prcferred by the Opposite party aggrieved by the orders dated 31.08.2017 passed by the District Forum, Warangal in CC No.100/2016 in allowing the complaint and directing the Opposite party to pay Rs.2,50,000/- towards sum assured amount along with interest (@

7.5% per annum from the date of filing complaint i.e., 30.08.2016 t realisation and to pay Rs.10,000/- towards damages and costs of the complaint granting time of one month for compliance.

2) For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as arrayed in the complaint.

3) lt is the case of Complainants that Complainant No.1 is society registered under Societies Act and its members are confined to BSNL employees. It obtained insurance coverage to all its members inchuding the husband of Complainant No.2 by G.Sudharshan vide policy name No.0319178550 for Rs.2,50,000/-, to which Complainant No.2 is shown as nominee. Said Sudharshan died on 30.01.2015 which was intimated to Opposite party and submitted the claim, which came to be rejected on the ground of suppression of material fact, vide letter dated 29.05.2015.

Even the review application dated 31.10.2015 also came to be rejected. Hence, complaining deficiency of service, filed the present complaint with a prayer to direct the Opposite party to pay Rs.2,50,000/- towards assured amount and Rs.1,00,000/- towards deficiency in service, together with interest @ 15% per annum and costs of the complaint.

4) Despite providing several opportunities, the Opposite party failed to cause its appearance and therefore its right to file the vakalath was forfeited and the matter was proceeded further.

5) During the course of enquiry before the District Forum, in order to prove her case, the Complainant fled her affidavit evidence as Pw1 and got marked the documents Ex.Al to A8.

6) The District Forum after considering the material available on record, allowed the complaint bearing CC No.100 of 2016, by orders dated 31.08.2017, as stated, at paragraph No.1, supra.

7) Aggrieved by the said orders, the Appellant preferred the present appeal contending that the forum below failed to afford opportunity to the Appellant Hence, prayed to allow the appeal by setting aside the orders impugned.

8) The point that arises for consideration is whether the impugned order as passed by the District Forum suffers from any errer or iTTegularity or whether it is liable to be set aside. modified or interierec with, in any manner? To what relief?

9) Having heard the submissions of both sides and in view of the peculiar facts and circumstances, in order to ^do complete and eñecur Justice to both the parties, we feel that the matter needs to be remanded back to the District Forum for fresh enquiry subject to certain terms.

employae oi

10) The admnitted facts are that one G.Sudharshan was an BSNL and a group insurance