M. P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PLOT NO.76, ARERA HILLS, BHOPAL FIRST APPEAL NO.1939 OF 2016 (Arising out of order dated 24.10.2016 passed in Case.No.106/2015 by District Commission, Mandsaur)

1. AKBAR, 2. SMT.SHARIFAN BI, BOTH R/O BHOIWADA, MANDSAUR. … APPELLANTS.

Versus

1. NAGAR PALIKA PARISHAD, THROUGH CHIEF NAGAR PALIKA OFFICER, MANDSAUR.

2. UNITED INDIA INSURANE COMPANY LIMITED, BRANCH OFFCE – 48, TAGORE MARG, NEEMUCH. .… RESPONDENTS.

BEFORE :

HON’BLE JUSTICE SMT.SUNITA YADAV, PRESIDENT HON’BLE DR. (MRS) MONIKA MALIK, MEMBER COUNSEL FOR PARTIES :

Ms. Meghana Rawat, appears on behalf of Shri Mahavir Bhatnagar, learned counsel for the appellants.

None present for respondents.

O R D E R (Passed on 06.11.2025)

The following order of the Commission was delivered by Dr.(Mrs) Monika Malik, Member :

This is an appeal by the complainant / appellant directed against the order dated 24.10.2016 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Mandsaur (for short ‘District Commission’) in complaint case no.106/2015, whereby the District Commission has partly allowed the complaint filed by them and has directed the opposite parties / respondents, jointly and severally to pay claim amount of Rs.3,00,000/- with interest @ 7% p.a. from 27.08.2015, till payment with compensation and costs of Rs.5,000/- and Rs.2,000/- respectively.

2. The complainants had filed complaint before the District Commission on the ground that the opposite party no.1 had obtained a policy from opposite party no.2 – United India Insurance Company Limited for a period w.e.f. 29.05.2013 to 28.05.2014. On 22.05.2015 their son – Saddam aged 22 years (hereinafter referred to as ‘deceased’) got drowned in the swimming pool which was operated by the opposite party no.1. When the complainants approached for payment of claim amount it was denied therefore, they alleged deficiency in service against the opposite parties.

3. Opposite party no.1 resisted the complaint on the ground that the deceased died because of his own negligence and there is no deficiency in service on part of opposite party no.1.

4. Opposite party no.2 in its reply before the District Commission submitted that the deceased was under the influence of alcohol when he drowned. Also, he did not know how to swim.

Therefore, there is no liability on the Insurance Company.

5. Heard. Perused the record.

6. Learned counsel for the complainants/ appellants argued that as per “Public Liability Non-Industrial Risk Policy” which is available on record limit for risk coverage for one year is Rs.10,00,000/-. Since other than the above mentioned incident no other accident occurred in that particular year, the complainants/ appellants were entitled for payment of entire sum of Rs.10,00,000/-. The District Commission should have awarded compensation taking into consideration the aforesaid. She relied on the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Vadodara Municipal Corporation Vs. Purshottam V.Murjani & Ors., AIR 2015 Supreme Court 321 and the judgment of Hon’ble National Commission in case of Mamta Ajmani & Ors Vs. New Delhi Young Men’s Christian Association & Anr., II (2010) CPJ 209 (NC) in support of her arguments. She prayed that the impugned order by modified accordingly.

7. ‘Public Liability Non-Industrial Risk Policy’ is available on record as Annexure C-16. As per the counsel for the complainants/ appellants ‘Any One Year’ risk limit is Rs.10,00,000/- whereas the risk coverage for ‘Any One Accident’

in an year is Rs.2,50,000/-. We find that on the basis of subject policy, the complainants / appellants are entitled for payment of Rs.10,00,000/-, has not been established by them, since no specific regulations regarding payment of claim as has been sought are available for perusal before us. Limit for ‘Any One Accident’ is mentioned as Rs.2,50,000/-. The District Commission taking into consideration age and monthly income of the deceased has allowed payment of Rs.3,00,000/- as compensation to the