It is number disputed even by the companyplainant, submitted the companynsel, that numberpayment was made on or before May 28, 1996.
Mani Ram respondent herein son of one Budhu Ram, resident of village Khatehar, Pargana and Tehsil Sadar, District Bilaspur HP filed a companyplaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 hereinafter referred to as the Act , before the District Consumer Forum, Bilaspur.
No premium, however, was paid on April 28, 1996 number till May 28, 1996 and the policy lapsed.
5215/ was paid on the same day.
According to the companyplainant, the next instalment of premium was due on August 21, 1996.
Grace period of one month was available to the insured and payment ought to have been made by May 28, 1996.
Finally, by a companymunication dated August 11, 1997, the Insurance Company refused to pay any amount.
Being aggrieved by the order passed by the District Forum, both, the companyplainant as well as Insurance Company filed appeal before the State Commission.
It was asserted by the companyplainant that he was the numberinee of deceased Ashok Kumar as the father.
Since Ashok Kumar met with an accident and died on August 2, 1996, the Insurance Company was liable.
At the request of the insured, however, the policy was back dated with effect from April 28, 1995.
We have heard the learned companynsel for the parties.
Mr. G.L. Sanghi, learned senior companynsel for the Insurance Company submitted that the Fora below have companymitted an error of law in holding that the policy was subsisting.
The request was granted by the Insurance Company and the policy was issued.
The companyplaint was, therefore, liable to be dismissed.
It accordingly awarded an amount of Rs.50,000/ with interest 12 p.a.
The companynsel admitted that the first premium was paid on August 21, 1995, but in the proposal dated August 19, 1995, a request was made to make the policy effective with back date from April 28, 1995.
Since the amount was number paid, the companyplainant was companystrained to approach the District Forum.
The learned companynsel for the respondent, on the other hand, submitted that the companytentions raised by the appellant Insurance Company were companysidered by the Fora below and in the light of the facts and circumstances as also the decision of this Court, orders were passed which call for numberinterference.
The Insurance Company approached the National Commission against the orders passed by the Fora below.
The policy, therefore, lapsed on May 28, 1996.
It was stated that deceased Ashok Kumar was insured with the Insurance Company.
and companyts of Rs.500/ .
The District Forum companysidered the rival companytentions of the parties and held that the deceased was assured for Rs.50,000/ on August 21, 1995.
It was also admitted that the premium amount was paid to the Insurance Company on August 21, 1995 but the policy holder got the policy effected from a back date, i.e. from April 28, 1995.
Admittedly, numbersuch payment was made either in April, 1996 or in May, 1996.
If, on the other hand, the policy lapsed, as companytended by the Insurance Company, numberclaim companyld have been put forward by the companyplainant and the Insurance Company was right in rejecting the claim.
SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION CIVIL No.2795 of 2003 K. Thakker, J. Leave granted.
It observed that numberdoubt the policy was back dated to April 28, 1995, but as the premium was paid on August 21, 1995, next premium became due on August 21, 1996.
Deceased Ashok Kumar was insured by the Insurance Company and the first premium was paid on August 21, 1995.
Giving benefit of grace period of one month, the premium amount was required to be paid latest by May 28, 1996.
The question for our companysideration, therefore, is whether on August 2, 1996, the policy companyld be said to be valid and subsisting.
The companyplainant, in view of the subsisting policy, requested the appellant Insurance Company to pay the insurance claim amount of Rs.2,50,000/ to the companyplainant, but under the lame and false excuses, the Insurance Company did number pay the amount.
Since the assured died on August 2, 1996, the Insurance Company was number liable.
The appellant Insurance Company resisted the claim of the companyplainant by filing a written reply.
If the reply is in affirmative, obviously, the companyplainant was entitled to the amount awarded.
The deceased was unmarried.
According to the Insurance Company, therefore, the next premium was due and payable after one year, i.e., on April 28, 1996.
So far as the factual position is companycerned, there is numberdispute between the parties.
The National Commission, however, dismissed the Revision Petition by observing that companycurrent findings had been recorded that the policy was subsisting and the Insurance Company was liable under the said policy.
Taking into account grace period of one month, premium amount ought to have been paid latest by May 28, 1996.
Ashok Kumar insured, however, died in an accident on August 2, 1996 at Barmana as the boundary wall of the D.A.V. School fell on him and he was crushed under the debris.
In our opinion, therefore, the learned companynsel for the Insurance Company is right in submitting that one year came to an end on April 28, 1996 and the insured was liable to pay premium on that date as it became due and payable.
The period of policy was thus from April 28, 1995 to April 28, 1996.
A preliminary objection was raised against the maintainability of the companyplaint on the ground that the policy had lapsed due to number payment of premium within the prescribed period and hence, the companyplainant had numberright to claim anything.
In the companyplaint, it was inter alia alleged by the companyplainant that his son Ashok Kumar had been insured with the appellant Insurance Company on August 21, 1995 and premium amount of Rs.
Accordingly a claim of Rs.2,50,000/ was made along with interest and damages on account of mental torture and financial loss suffered by the companyplainant.
This appeal is filed by the Life Insurance Corporation of India Insurance Company for short against the order passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Bilaspur Himachal Pradesh , companyfirmed by the Himachal Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Shimla and also companyfirmed by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi.
According to the National Commission, since the first premium was paid on August 21, 1995, the next premium was due on August 21, 1996.
The short facts giving rise to the present appeal may number be stated.
Since the deceased Ashok Kumar met with an accident on August 2, 1996, there was numbersubsisting policy in favour of the insured inasmuch as it lapsed on May 28, 1996, the Insurance Company companyld number be held liable and the companyplainant was number entitled to any amount.
The companynsel submitted that deposit payment of premium amount was number at all relevant as the policy was for a period of one year from April 28, 1995.
It was submitted that the next premium was due on April 28,1996 and the amount ought to have been paid.
