Aggrieved by this order, appeal was filed before the Commission.
The insured died on account of an accident by way of falling into a well and drowning.
from the date of the companyplaint.
Since this order had been passed ex parte against respondent, on an application moved by the respondent the earlier order was recalled and both the parties were given opportunity to present their case.
FIR was lodged, autopsy was performed and appellant was informed.
It directed payment of the amount as numbered above.
Various documents were also furnished claiming payment in spite of the policy.
When the appellantCompany did number settle the claim, a companyplaint came to be filed before the Madhya Pradesh State Consumer Redressal Commission, Bhopal in short the State Commission alleging deficiency in service on the part of the appellant.
The Commission upset the order of the State Commission and held that the appellant was liable to pay to the respondent hereinafter referred to as the companyplainant a sum of Rs.5 lakhs together with interest 6 p.a.
Lalitha Devi Patel wife of the companyplainant had obtained a Janata Personal Accident Policy for a sum of Rs.5 lakh in August, 1998, for which a premium was paid and accepted and the policy was issued.
19538 of 2004 ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. Leave granted.
Arising out of SLP C No.
After hearing the parties, the Commission passed order dated 2.5.2002 allowing the companyplaint and setting aside the order of the State Commission.
Factual position in a nutshell is essentially as follows Smt.
Appellant calls in question legality of the judgment rendered by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi in short the Commission .
