Date of filing :02.03.2025 Date of order :11.02.2026 MAHARASHTRA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,MUMBAI, BENCH AT AURANGABAD.

COMPLAINT CASE NO.: 05 OF 2026

1. Jayashree Jagannath Amle, Complainant No.1to3 Age- 38 years, Occj- Household, 2. Samiksha Jagannath Amle, Age- 17 years, Occu- Education.

3. Chaitnya Jagannath Amle, Age- 15 Years, Occu- Education.

All R/o Devgiri Nagar, D-11/3 CIDCO Waluj, Mahanagar-1, Wadgaon Kolhati, Aurangabad.

VERSUS Aditya Birla Sun Life Insurance Opponent.

Company Ltd,.

Through its Manager, G-Crop Tech Park, 6th floor, Ghodbunder road, Kasar Vadavali, Thane West 400 601.

Present :- Adv.M.R.Deshmukh for complainants.

CORAM : Milind.S.Sonawane, Hon’ble Presiding Member.

Nagesh C.Kumbre, Hon’ble Member.

J U D G M E N T

(Delivered on 11/02/2026)

Per Mr.Nagesh C.Kumbre, Hon’ble Member.

The complainant filed this consumer complainant under section 45 read with section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act

2019 ( in short the “C.P. Act”).

2. It is the case of complainant that, she is a widow and complainant no.2 and 3 are the children of late Jagannath Amle (“deceased” in short ). In the year 2019, deceased obtained the Term Life Insurance Policy, ABSLI Life Shield Plan ( “policy” in short) form the opponent. The term of said policy was 43 years and annual premium was Rs. 23,918.60/-. The date of commencement of policy was 23.10.2019 and date of payment of premium was 23 October of every year. Deceased consistently paid premium of policy from the year 2019 till the year 2023. Policy provided cover of Rs. 1,00,00,000/- for natural death. On 23.08.2024 deceased was died during treatment of sudden vertigo attack. Complainant submitted insurance claim with opponent but on 22.11.2024 the same was repudiated by opponent. As such opponent committed deficiency in service towards complainant, complainant filed this consumer complaint before this Commission along with relevant documents.

3. On perusing the complaint and documents filed by complainant the following points arise for our determination. We have noted them along with our findings against it for the reasons follow.

REASONS As to point no.(I).-

4. On behalf of Adv. M.R.Deshmukh for complainant, Adv. sharma submitted that, this Commission is having the pecuniary jurisdiction to try and entertain this complaint as complainant claim the total agreed sum insured Rs. 1 Crore along with 18 % interest and sought compensation of Rs. 25 Lacs for mental pain, agony, deficiency in service and Rs. 1 Lac for cost of litigation. As such complainant sought the relief worth more than Rs. 50 lakh which is within the pecuniary limits of this Commission therefore this Commission is having pecuniary jurisdiction to try and entertain this complaint.

5. However we don’t agree with the submission made by Adv. Sharma for complainant. Section 47 (1) (a) (i) of C.P. Act read with Central Government Circular dated 31.12.2021, stipulates that, State Commission would have to entertain the complaints where the value of goods or services “paid as a consideration” is more than Rs. 50 lakh upto Rs. 2 crore. The provisions are very much clear that pecuniary limit of this Commission is to be decided not on the basis of value of the goods or services or the compensation claimed but on the consideration paid for the value of the goods or services as the case may be. In present case it appears from the complaint that, deceased paid yearly premium of Rs.23,918.60/- from the year 2019 till the year 2023. It means deceased paid total Rs.1,19,593/- towards the premium of policy to opponent. Therefore the consideration paid by deceased to opponent was Rs.1,19,593/- which is below Rs. 50 lakh. As such we are of the view that, this Commission is not having pecuniary jurisdiction to try and entertain this complaint. Hence, we answer point