BEFORE THE TELANGANA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION : HYDERABAD.

AE NO.03 OF 2025 AGAINST ORDERS IN EA.NO.20 OF 2025 IN IA.NO.2021 IN CC.NO.44 OF 2025, DISTRICT CONSUMER COMMISSION- MEDAK AT SANGAREDDY Between The Manager, Hinduja Leyland Finance Ltd., SR Nagar, Hyderabad – 500038. ……Appellant/Respondent No.2 And

1. Banoth Sali Bai, W/o.Late Banoth Shankar, Aged about 54 years, Occ: Housewife, R/o.H.No.2-4/1, Devula Thanda, Yellupet tekmal (M), Medak District.

……Respondent No.1/Petitioner

2. The Manager MGB, Motor and Auto Agencies Pvt.Ltd., 2-26/2, Hyder Nagar, Opp: Vasanth Nagar Gate, Medchal-Malkajgiri – 500072.

3. The Manager, Care Health Insurance Limited, C-Block, on 2nd Floor, BRIJ TARNAG COMMERCIAL COMPLEX, M.No.631191/1 to 631196/2C, Beside Greenland, Guest House, Begumpet, Hyderabad – 500016.

4. The General Manager, Care Health Insurance Limited, Regd. office: Vipul Tech Square, Tower C, 3rd floor, Golf Course Road, Sector-43, Gurugram – 122009.

……Respondents No.2 to 4/Respondents No.1,3 & 4 Counsel for the Appellant/Respondent No.2: M/s.LAD Legal Services LLP Counsel for the Respondent No.1/Petitioner: M/s.M.S.Khan Counsel for the Respondents 3&4/Respondents 3&4: Notice served QUORAM:

HON’BLE SMT.JUSTICE DR.G.RADHA RANI ……PRESIDENT &

HON’BLE SMT.MEENA RAMANATHAN ……MEMBER (NON-JUDICIAL)

MONDAY THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND TWENTY SIX ******

Order: (Per Smt.Dr.G.Radha Rani, Hon’ble President)

1. This appeal in execution is filed by the Respondent No.2 aggrieved by the orders of the District Commission, Medak at Sangareddy dated 22.08.2025 in EA.No.20/2025 in IA.No.21/2025 in CC.No.44/2025.

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

3. The facts of the case in brief are that:

The Respondent No.1/Complainant filed CC.No.44/2025 on the file of the District Commission, Medak at Sangareddy, stating that her deceased husband namely Banoth Shankar was an agriculturist and approached Opposite Party No.1 for purchase of JCB vehicle and represented that the cost of vehicle was Rs.31,54,459/-. For providing loan he was introduced to Opposite Party No.2 therein who is the Appellant in the present appeal to make finance arrangements to the deceased husband of the Complainant. It was further averred by the Complainant that the Appellant herein sanctioned loan amount of Rs.28,55,000/- to her husband and that her husband made a down payment of Rs.2,20,798/- and purchased the JCB vehicle on 28.09.2024. To cover risk of payment of finance, a group policy of Health Insurance was given by Opposite Parties No.3 and 4 therein. The Complainant was the nominee of the insurance. The certificate of insurance was valid from 07.10.2024 to 06.10.2029. As per the policy, if the insured died during the subsistence of the policy, the liability of payment of rest of the instalments of the JCB would be upon Opposite Parties No.3 and 4 i.e., the Insurer and there would not be any need to pay further instalments by the nominee of the deceased and his family members and the JCB vehicle become free to the nominee. It was further stated by the Complainant that her husband passed away due to heart attack on 09.10.2024. Since the policy was in force, she approached Opposite Party No.1 who in turn referred her to contact Opposite Party No.2 and when she contacted Opposite Party No.2, she was again asked to approach Opposite Parties No.3 & 4 since they were the insurance providers and when she approached the Opposite Party No.3 and explained the cause of death and requested them to settle the matter and to close the account of her deceased husband and to release the sum assured amount of Rs.28,55,000/-, instead of settling the matter, Opposite Party No.3 rejected the claim on the ground that the insured died within two days from the date of issuing policy. As such the Complainant filed a complaint against Opposite Parties No.1 to 4.

4. Along with the complaint, the Complainant filed IA.No.21/20