- (1.) THIS appeal, under Section 15, of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, (hereinafter called the 'Act' for short) is directed against the order dated 4.9.2004 in Complaint No. 149 of 2003 by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Sarguja (hereinafter called 'District Forum' for short) directing the appellant/insurer to pay the complainant/respondent No. 1 a sum of Rs 5,00,000 with interest @ 9% p.a. payable from 23.10.2003. Cost of Rs. 500 was also awarded.
(2.) INDISPUTABLY , the complainant Smt. Neelam Singh is the wife of deceased Mrigendra Singh, who was an employee of the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 -S.E.C.L. He was posted and working in Bhatgaon Colliery as driver. It is also now not in dispute that Mrigendra Singh died on 16.10.2002 in a road accident.
(3.) THE averments of the complainant in brief are : that the deceased Mrigendra Singh was covered under the Group Janata Personal Accident Insurance Policy (hereinafter called 'Janata Policy' for short), which was effective from 16.10.1999 to 15.10.2009. It was further averred that after the accidental death of Mrigendra Singh on 16.10.2002 the complainant/respondent No. 1 approached the appellant/insurer and submitted claim form etc. praying that assured amount under the policy be paid to her. However, the amount under the policy having not been paid to her, therefore, she approached the District Forum and filed the complaint. Complaint was resisted by the appellant/insurer. It was averred that the District Forum had no territorial jurisdiction to try the complaint as the policy was obtained by the S.E.C.L., Bilaspur from the appellant -insurer. It was also averred that S.E.C.L., Bilaspur was a necessary party. It was further averred that as the complainant failed to intimate about the death of her husband within 15 days in compliance of the terms of the policy; hence the claim was not payable to her. It was further averred that the complainant did not produce necessary documents as demanded by the appellant/insurer; hence her claim could not be settled. Thus, it was averred that there was no deficiency in service by the appellant -insurer, the complaint deserved to be dismissed.;