Back
FA/No/446/2014
MAHARASHTRA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL
COMMISSION, MUMBAI CIRCUIT BENCH AT AURANGABAD.
Date of filing: 25/08/2014
Date of order: 15/10/2015
FIRST APPEAL No : 446 of 2014
IN COMPLAINT CASE NO : 81 OF 2013
DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM: BEED.
Radhabai Janardan Gutte
R/o.At Dahwandi Post Warni,
Tq.Shirur (Kasar),
Dist.Beed.
APPELLANT
VERSUS
1. The Manager
Pancard Clubs Ltd
First Floor Dreemland Building,
Sawedi Manmad road,
Ahmednagar 414 011.
2. Kalidas Navnath Aadhav
Pancard Claubs Ltd Beed,
R/o. At Dahiwandi Post Warni,
Tq.Shirur (Ka) Dist. Beed.
3. The Manager
Oriental Insurance Company Ltd
Branch at Beed Opp. Hotel Shantai,
Jalna road, Beed.
RESPONDENTS
Coram : Mr.S.M.Shembole, Hon’ble Presiding Judicial Member.
Mrs.Uma Bora, Hon’ble Member.
Present
: Adv.Shri.Sandeep H.Shirsat for the appellant.
Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 ex-parte.
Adv.Shri.P.M.Hiwale for the respondent No.3.
J U D G M E N T
( Delivered on 15th Oct. 2015 )
FA/No/446/2014
Per. Mr.S.M.Shembole, Hon’ble Presiding Judicial Member.
1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated
15/07/2014 passed by the Dist. Consumer Forum Beed dismissing
consumer complaint No. 81/2013.
{For the sake of brevity appellant Radhabai Gutte is
hereinafter referred as the complainant and respondents as
“opponents”. }
2.
Brief facts giving rise to this appeal are that:-
Late Janardan who was a son of the complainant, was a
member of opponent No. 1 Pancard Clubs Ltd. He had purchased
Personal Accidental Death Insurance Policy from opponent No. 3
through opponent No. 2 the representative of marketing person of
opponent No. 1 Pancard Clubs Ltd. He also paid amount of
premium Rs 10,800/- to opponent No.1. During the subsistence of
the policy, on 18/10/2011 insured Janardhan died in motor
accident. After his death his mother / complainant submitted
insurance claim with opponent No. 3 insurance company through
opponent No. 1 but her claim came tobe repudiated on the ground
that it was prematured. Therefore alleging deficiency in service on
the part of the opponents the complainant has filed consumer
complaint claiming compensation of Rs 1,60,000/- with interest.
FA/No/446/2014
3. The opponent by its written version admitted that late
Jnardhan was a member of opponent No. 1 and opponent No. 1 had
obtained insurance policy from opponent No. 3 insurance company.
However, it is submitted that late Janardhan was not its consumer
and consumer complaint is not maintainable. It is further
submitted that opponent No. 3 insurance company is not liable for
the payment of insurance. It has denied all other adverse averments
made by the complainant and submitted to dismiss the complaint.
4. Opponent No. 2 by his written version also submitted that he
is not responsible for the insurance claim. He only received the
amount of insurance premium and deposited with the opponent
insurance company. It is submitted to dismiss the complaint
against him.
5. Opponent No. 3 insurance company by its separate written
version resisted the complaint contending inter-alia that insurance
policy which was purchased by Janardhan was for the period from
21/10/2011 to 17/03/2012 but before the date of commencement
of the policy, insured Janardhan is died. Therefore his mother is
not entitled for any claim. It has denied all other adverse averments
made by the complainant and submitted to dismiss the complaint.
6. On hearing both side and considering the evidence on record,
the Dist. Consumer Forum held that the opponents have not
committed any deficiency in service and therefore the complainant
FA/No/446/2014
is not entitled to get any insurance claim as her son Janardhan
died before the date of commencement of the policy. In keeping with
these findings the Dist. Consumer Forum dismissed the complaint.
7. Feeling aggrieved by the said judgment and
