RAJESH VATS Vs. H P STATE CO-OP HOUSING FEDERATION LTD
HIMACHAL PRADESH STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
H P State Co -Op Housing Federation Ltd
Click here to view full judgement.
(1.) THIS appeal is directed against the order of District Forum, Shimla, Himachal Pradesh passed in Consumer Complaint No.113/2002, dated 24.12.2008, whereby the complaint was dismissed by the District Forum below on the ground that the complaint is not legally maintainable and is hit by the doctrine of res judicata and it deserves dismissal.
(2.) FACTS of the case as they emerge from the complaint file are that in the present case earlier Complaint No. 737/2001 was filed by Smt. Daya Sharma against respondent Nos. 1 and 2 before the District Forum, Mandi. This complaint was dismissed by said Forum vide order 7.3.2002 by concluding that the complaint against the respondent No. 2 is dismissed on the ground that the Fora had got no jurisdiction and the complaint against respondent Nos. 1 and 3 was dismissed on merit by holding that since the insurance premium was not paid on the due date or within the grace period, as such, the respondent Nos. 1 and 3 in the aforesaid complaint are not liable to pay the insured amount.
(3.) THEREAFTER Smt. Daya Sharma who is now deceased had filed the complaint against respondent Nos. 1 and 2 for deficiency of service on their part. In the said complaint, it was alleged by the legal heirs of Smt. Daya Sharma, the then complainant who had died during the pendency of the complaint that respondent No.1 had not provided the premium of insurance of the husband of the complainant to the Insurance Company, and as such the claim was repudiated by proforma respondent No. 2.
Further averments made in the complaint are that the husband of the complainant died due to natural calamity on 22.10.1995 and loan installment was deposited by the husband of the complainant on21.10.1995 and thereafter the respondent Nos. 1 and 3 had not settled the claim of the husband of the complainant and as per her she is entitled double of the LIC policy amount because the death of her husband had occurred due to natural calamity and she had claimed for double accidental benefit of LIC policy amounting to Rs. 85,384 and she had also claimed compensation for mental tension and harassment to the tune of Rs. 1,00,000. In this background, complaint under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 was filed for deficiency of service on the part of respondents.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.