AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Prem Narain, J
The present revision petition has been filed by the petitioner / OP 1, New India Assurance Company Ltd, against the order dated 25.01.2016 of the Bihar State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Patna ('the State Commission') passed in Appeal no. 497 of 2008, wherein the appeal filed by the petitioner herein has been dismissed and the order of the District Forum has been affirmed.
The brief facts of the case are that the father of respondent no.1 namely Lagandeo Rai (since deceased) had taken an insurance policy styled 'Janta Personal Accident Insurance Policy' for sum of Rs.3,00,000/-. On 30th June 2005 at about 1.30 AM, respondent's father died due to snake bite. The insurance claim was filed by the respondent/ complainant which is yet to be settled by the petitioner/ OP. Hence, a case was filed before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Vaishali, Hajipur ('the District Forum'). The District Forum vide its order dated 10.11.2008 has allowed the claim of Rs.3,00,000/- against both the OPs jointly and severally along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from July 2006, till the date of payment. Besides, OPs were directed to make the payment of litigation cost of Rs.5,000/- to the complainant.
Being aggrieved, the petitioner preferred an appeal no. 497 of 2008 and FA no. 44 of 2009 was preferred by respondent no. 2 before the State Commission. The appeal no. 497 of 2008 filed by the petitioner was dismissed vide order dated 25th January 2016 of the State Commission, however, the appeal no. 44 of 2009 filed by respondent no.2 was allowed vide the same order. Thus, the total liability was fastened on the petitioner Insurance Company.
Hence, the present revision petition.
The parties present were heard. Learned counsel for the petitioner stated that the respondent no.2 had wrongly insured father of respondent no.1/complainant and therefore, claim is not liable to be paid. Both the fora below have passed erroneous orders without looking at the objections filed by the insurance company.
On the other hand, it was stated by learned counsel for respondent no.2 that similar matter has been decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide its order dated 25.11.2016 in SLP no. 7732 of 2016 New India Assurance Company Ltd. vs. Sugiya Devi and another wherein the total insurance amount has been ordered to be deposited by the insurance company before the District Forum and the same would be released to the complainant by the District Forum without asking for any security. Therefore, nothing remains pending in this revision petition as the same may be disposed of by ordering the insurance company to deposit the insurance amount before the District Forum and the same may be released in favour of complainant/respondent no.1 by the District Forum.
The proxy counsel appearing on behalf of the main counsel for respondent no.1 stated that he agrees with the arguments of the learned counsel for respondent no.2.
I have carefully perused the record and have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties. Initially, in a similar matter in SLP No.7732 of 2016, the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide its order dated 29.4.2016 had ordered that the insurance company shall deposit 50% of the amount before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission and the same shall be released to the complainant without any security. Later on, the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide order dated 25.11.2016, modified its earlier order dated 29.4.2016, by ordering that the complainant need not appear in the matter as the dispute now remains basically between the insurance company and respondent no.2 and the insurance company shall deposit the remaining 50% insured amount also with the District Forum and the District Forum shall release this amount to the complainant without any security. This means that Hon'ble Supreme Court has allowed payment of 100% amount of insurance to the complainant without any security and his presence also has been dispensed with treating the pending matter as a dispute between the insurance company and respondent no.2.
Once the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court has been passed in a similar case, no discretion remains with this Commission to take any other view in the matter. The District Forum has already ordered to release the insurance amount to the complainant and the order has been upheld by the State Commission. Accordingly, as ordered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the above referred similar matter, the insurance company is directed to deposit the total insurance amount along with interest as ordered by the District Forum till today with the District Forum within a period of four weeks and the District Forum is directed to release the same to the complainant/respondent no.1, after due verification of the deposited amount as well as of the complainant. It is further directed that no security will be required for releasing this amount to the complainant/ respondent no.1. The revision petition is accordingly disposed of in terms of this order. It is obvious in the circumstances that the dispute between insurance company and respondent no.2 shall be governed by the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the SLP No.7732 of 2016.