- (1.) THIS appeal, under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, is directed against the order dated 25.11.2003, in Complaint No. 386/02, by the District Consumer Disputes redressal Forum, Durg, (hereinafter called the 'District Froum' for short) directing that the appellant/insurer as well as respondent No. 4 - Hindi daily newspaper 'Nav Bharat' would be jointly and severally liable to pay to the assured an amount of Rs. 60,000 with interest @ 6% as also Rs. 10,000 as compensation for mental harassment to the complainant/respondent Nos. 1 to 3 herein.
(2.) INDISPUTABLY , Pradeep @ Pappu Chaturvedi -the husband of respondent No. 1 and father of respondents 2 and 3, was a subscriber of respondent No. 4 'Nav Bharat' newspaper. The respondent No. 4 floated and published a scheme (Annexure -1) by which, it was proposed that those subscribers of 'Nav Bharat' newspaper shall be entitled to Personal Accident Insurance cover for a period of one year who would pay its subscription for 3 months. It is also not in dispute that Pappu @ Pradeep Chaturvedi paid 3 months subscription on 25.11.2001 as per receipt marked as document No. 1. Thus the condition entitling him to insurance cover as above. It is further not in dispute that Pradeep Chaturvedi had died as he met with an accident on 8.12.2001 on Mandla Road.
(3.) THE complainants lodged their claim with respondent No. 4 for payment of the assured amount. Since their claim was not paid, they preferred the complaint before the District Forum. The appellant/insurer as well as newspaper respondent No. 4 resisted the complaint. The resistance in substance of the appellant to the claim of the complainants was that as the premium was received by the Insurance Company after the death of Pradeep Chaturvedi, therefore, the risk of the life of the said Pradeep Chaturvedi was not covered by the policy issued by them. The District Forum repelled the contention as above. It was held that since the subscription for 3 months was paid by the deceased and as the payment thereof entitled him to the coverage of risk under the policy, therefore, complainants were entitled to the benefit under the policy. The appellant and respondent No. 4 were, therefore, directed to pay the assured amount as well as compensation of Rs. 10,000 to the complainants.;