K.D.SHAHI,PRESIDENT - (1.) THIS is an appeal against the order dated 4.12.2003 passed by the District Forum, Haridwar whereby the complaint of the complainant Sh. Rajender Singh was allowed against Life Insurance Corporation of India, the appellant.
(2.) THE brief facts of the case are that the insured Sh. Phool Singh had got an insurance policy on 28.1.2000. Unfortunately Sh. Phool Singh died on 4.4.2002. The complainant being his son and nominee lodged the claim. It is alleged by the Insurance Company that Sh. Rajender Singh has alleged himself to be an adopted son of the insured. There is no proof of adoption. The real brother of the insured was the father of Sh. Rajender Singh but this dispute is meaningless particularly when Sh. Rajender Singh is the nominee. Any person who is a nominee, may be son or even an unknown person, is entitled to the claim. However the Insurance Company repudiated the claim only on the ground that while taking the insurance policy in the proposal form, the age of the insured was shown only 64 years, while he was aged 73 years on the date of insurance. It is said when the policy could not have been given to the insured had he disclosed his real age. This is the only point of dispute and at this both the parties have given evidence. The learned Forum held that there was no wrong information regarding the age at the time of taking the policy and, therefore, allowed the complaint, against which order the present appeal has been filed.
(3.) WE have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and gone through the records and we have examined the evidence. The only evidence as argued by the learned Counsel for the Insurance Company was the voter list. The voter list is never an evidence of age. It is only for the purposes to show that a person is major and he is entitled to vote. Two voter lists held are contrary to each other and it cannot be said that which of the two is believable and we are of the opinion that none of voter list is believable because that is not an evidence of age. In the voter list of 1999, the age of Sh. Phool Singh, insured has been written as 80 years. In the voter list of 1994, his age has been written as 60 years. If in 1994, he was of 60 years, in 1999 he should be of 65 years and in 2003 he should be of the age of 69 years. He will not grow younger in 2003 to be of 78 years, if he was of 80 years in 1999. All these have been discussed in the judgment of the learned Forum. In the Kutumb Register, the age of the insured has been written correctly, which has been shown in the proposal form. Kutumb Register has got more authenticity under the provisions of Panchayat Raj Act. Even the doctor of the Insurance Company has examined the insured at the time of proposal and he has certified the same age. Reliance was placed on the statement of one Sh. Vijay Pal Singh, who has given his statement to the Insurance Company and said that the age of the insured at the time of death was 82 -83 years. Such a type of investigation and behaviour of the Insurance Company cannot be appreciated. The Insurance Company did not get any independent witness in the village and locality. Sh. Vijay Pal Singh is a permanent enemy of the insured and the complainant. There are a number of litigations between the complainant and the insured on one hand and Sh. Vijay Pal Singh in consolidation. There were a number of litigations between the insured and Sh. Vijay Pal Singh. He will definitely like to cause damage to the complainant and will definitely try to give false statement to defeat his claim. The statement of an archenemy cannot be believed. The learned Forum has rightly allowed the complaint. There is nothing to interfere in the finding recorded by the learned Forum. This appeal has got no force and is liable to be dismissed. ORDER The appeal is hereby dismissed. However cost shall be easy. Appeal dismissed.;