BHARTI DEVI vs UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD. & ORS.

This revision petition has been filed against the impugned order dated 21.1.2009, passed by the Rajasthan State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Jaipur (hereinafter referred as the ''State Commission'') in Appeals No.648/2008, United India Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Smt. Bharti Devi and others and allied appeals, concerned with Consumer Complaints Nos. 8 to 11/2007, filed by the respondents in the said appeals before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Sirohi (Rajasthan).

The facts of the case are that a Special Sales Promotional Scheme is stated to have been introduced by the Indian Oil Corporation (IOC) under which, they had an arrangement with the OP United India Insurance Company Ltd. to provide a personal accident insurance policy for Rs.1 lakh on every purchase of one pack of 20 ltrs. Servo Super Product. The maximum permissible benefit to be given to an individual was fixed as Rs.10 lakhs for one person insured and it was applicable for one year from the date of purchase. It is stated that the deceased Suresh Kumar Barot, husband of Smt. Bharti Devi complainant, purchased 10 packs of 20 litres each of Servo Super MG 20W40 (20 litre bucket) on 31.1.2004 from the dealer M/s. Parasrampuria Traders, vide invoice no.1410 dated 31.1.2004, in his name. He was issued 10 different policies, bearing no.145301 to 145310 under the Servo Suraksha personal Accident Insurance Scheme, valid for one year upto 31.1.2005 and on each policy, an insurance cover of Rs.1 lakh was allowed. In 7 (seven) of these policies, bearing no.145301, 145302, 145303, 145304, 145306, 145309 and 145310, Bharti Devi w/o Suresh Kumar Barot was made the nominee, whereas in policy no. 145305 and 145307, the brothers of the deceased were nominees and in policy no.145308, the mother of the deceased was the nominee. It was stated under condition no.7 of the policy, that if the insured died in an accident, the insurance company would pay a sum of Rs.1 lakh to the nominee of the deceased. It is stated in the consumer complaint filed that the insured Suresh Kumar Barot died in a road accident on 7.2.2004 at National Highway No.14, Village Mahawal , Distt. Sirohi. After the death of Suresh Kumar Barot, all the nominees under the policies submitted their claims before the OP insurance company, but the claims were repudiated by the said company through their letter dated 8.4.2005 stating as follows: "Insured was a part of marketing network of IOC Ltd. operating as retailer and not the retailer customer of OIC Ltd., hence not covered under the policy."

In the above letter, the insurance company refused to grant the claim, saying that the said Suresh Kumar Barot had purchased the product for selling the same to other customers and hence, he was not eligible to get benefit under the policy. The consumer complaint no.8/2007 was then filed before the District Forum, by Smt. Bharti Devi, wife, claiming a sum of Rs.7 lakhs under the 7 (seven) insurance policies, alongwith interest @ 12% p.a. on the said amount and compensation, total amounting to Rs.9.80 lakhs. Another complaint no.9/20007 was filed by Mukesh Kumar brother, complaint no.10/2007 by Ramesh Kumar brother and complaint no.11/2007 by Smt. Parwati Devi mother, seeking a sum of Rs.1 lakh each, alongwith interest and compensation under the said policies.

In their reply before the District Forum, the OP insurance company stated that the deceased, Suresh Kumar Barot was the retail dealer of the IOC, under the name and style of ''Gurukripa'', whereas the policies were meant for retail customers only. The deceased had purchased the goods for selling the same to retail customers. It is also stated in the reply of the OP insurance company that if Suresh Kumar Barot would have purchased the goods from M/s. Parasrampuria Traders as a retail consumer for his personal use, he would have prepared the bill in his name, whereas he purchased the said goods with a purpose to sell the same at his shop Gurukripa Lubricants, situated at Abu Road and even the bill had been drawn in the name of ''Gurukripa''. The claim had been dismissed on the ground that Suresh Kumar Barot had tried to show himself as a retail consumer, whereas in fact, he himself was not a consumer of the product.

The District Forum, after taking into account the averments made by the parties, allowed the complaints and directed the OP insurance company to pay a sum of Rs.7 lakhs to Smt. Bharti Devi, under the seven policies and a sum of Rs.1 lakh to Mukesh Kumar brother, Rs.1 lakh to Ramesh Kumar brother and Rs.1 lakh to Smt. Parwati Devi mother. It was also directed that interest @ 8% per annum should be paid to the complainants since 1.1.2004 till realization and further, a compensation of Rs.5,000/- and litigation cost of Rs.2,000/- should be allowed to each of the complainants. Being aggrieved against the said order, the insurance company challenged the same by way of four appeals before the State Commission. Vide impugned order, the State Commission held that Smt. Bharti Devi, wife of the deceased was entitled to receive a total sum of Rs.1 lakh only in respect of Policy No. 145301 alongwith interest, compensation and cost as ordered by the District Forum. The appeals of the insurance company in respect of two brothers and mother of the deceased were allowed and the order of the District Forum was set aside and the complaints were ordered to be dismissed. Being aggrieved against the said order of the State Commission, Smt. Bharti Devi, complainant is before this Commission by way of the present revision petition.

At the time of hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn attention to a copy of the invoice no.1410 dated 31.1.2004 in the name of Suresh Kumar Barot, vide which, 10 packs of 20 ltrs. each of Servo Super MG 20W40 (20 Ltrs. Bucket) were purchased at a total price of Rs.13,232/- from the dealer Parasrampuria Traders. The learned counsel stated that copies of all 10 policies, issued in the name of Suresh Kumar Barot, bearing nos.145301 to 145310 with reference to cash memo no.1410 dated 31.1.2004 were also produced on record. As per condition no.6 attached with these policies, the maximum sum assured for an individual was Rs.10 lakh for an adult and Rs.5 lakh for a minor. The learned counsel stated that it was clear from the copies of the invoice and the bills in question, that the material was purchased by Suresh Kumar Barot himself and hence, his nominees were entitled to the relief claimed in the consumer complaints. The learned counsel has also drawn attention to the reply filed by the insurance company, saying that they had wrongly stated therein that the invoice was in the name of ''Gurukripa Lubricants''. The District Forum had rightly observed in their order that the insurance company had not produced any evidence to show that after purchasing the material in question, the deceased Suresh Kumar Barot had sold the same to his several customers. The insurance company had also not produced any such bill which would show that the deceased had sold the product to any other person. The contention of the insurance company in their reply was therefore, incorrect and the State Commission had erroneously observed that the material had been purchased for distribution to the customers. The observation of the State Commission that the deceased was guilty of committing breach of principle for utmost good faith was, therefore, not correct.

Per contra, the learned counsel for the insurance company stated that Surersh Kumar Barot was running a retail shop in the name of Gurukripa Lubricants and his intention was to sell the product to his customers. The learned counsel pointed out that on 29.10.2004, the insurance company had sent a letter addressed to Parasrampuria Traders, seeking clarification as to whether Suresh Kumar Barot was representing M/s. Gurukripa. In reply, M/s. Parasrampuria Traders had stated that Policy Nos.145301 to 145310 had been issued to Suresh Kumar Barot against Bill No.1410 by mistake. The claim had, therefore, been rightly repudiated by the insurance company.

I have examined the entire material on record and given a thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced before me.

From the material available on record, it has been amply made clear that vide Invoice No.1410 dated 31.1.2004, 10 packs of 20 ltrs. each of Sarvo Super Brand Oil were sold to Suresh Kumar Barot by M/s. Parasrampuria Traders. It is also clear from record that 10 policies, bearing no.145301 to 145310 were issued in favour of Suresh Kumar Barot. There is no mention at all about the firm Gurukripa Lubricants in the said invoice and hence, the reply given by the insurance company is not based on the material on record. The District Forum have rightly observed that the contention of the OP insurance company that the material purchased by Suresh Kumar Barot was meant for selling to individual customers is not proved from any evidence, is absolutely correct. Had the said material been sold to any other customer, the OP insurance company could have produced evidence in support of their contention, but they failed to do so. It is not understood how the State Commission concluded in the impugned order that the policies were meant for distribution to the customers and hence, the wife of the deceased would be entitled to get benefit under one policy only. The State Commission have also recorded that there was no dispute on the point that the deceased had not given the polices to the customers, but had kept all the policies with himself, making his wife as the nominee in seven policies and his brothers and mother as nominees in the other policies. It is not understood, how the State Commission concluded that the deceased was guilty of committing breach of principle of utmost good faith. Since, the invoice as well as all the policies stand in the name of the deceased, it shall be wrong to presume that nominees were not entitled for benefit under the policies. The order passed by the State Commission is, therefore, perverse in the eyes of law and deserves to be set aside as the said Commission made all wrong presumptions, while coming to their conclusion.

Further, it is also clear that the factum of issuing all the policies by the United India Insurance Company in favour of Suresh Kumar Barot has not been denied anywhere. In case, the insurance company was under the impression that the material being purchased by Suresh Kumar Barot was meant for selling the same to some other customers, they could have refused to issue the policies in his name. It is immaterial, whether a person purchases one pack or a number of packs under the scheme. The insurance company is bound to provide compensation of Rs.1 lakh in the event of death for every policy, issued for the purchase of a single pack. There is already a cap of Rs.10 lakhs fixed for giving compensation in case of an adult and Rs.5 lakh in case of a minor. The stand of the insurance company is, therefore, wholly unjustified, if they say that the 10 packs purchased by the complainant were not meant for his own consumption and his nominees were not entitled to get benefit under all the policies. The order passed by the State Commission, stating that the wife of the complainant could get benefit under one policy only, squarely defies any logic. On the other hand, the order passed by the District Forum reflects a correct appreciation of the facts as well as the legal issues involved in the matter.

Based on the discussion above, the order passed by the State Commission is set aside and the present revision petition is allowed. The order passed by the District Forum dated 4.3.2008 is ordered to be restored. There shall be no order as to costs.