- (1.) HEARD Mr. A.O. Chudgar, Id. advocate for the appellant at length. Mr. S.C. Shah, Id. advocate present in the Commission waives service and accepts notice and appears on behalf of the respondent. With the consent of the Id. advocates for the parties, we have taken up the appeal for final hearing at the stage of admission.
(2.) RESPONDENT herein filed a complaint before the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Jamnagar being Complaint No. 88 of 2012 wherein she prayed for the claim of PA to owner driver under the policy which has been obtained by her husband with cover of risk to PA to owner -driver. It is not in dispute that at the relevant time the policy of insurance was subsisting. It is also not in dispute that risk of PA to owner was covered. Only dispute which has been raised by the appellant is that though there was delay of 4 years, the District Forum condoned the same which in the submission of Mr. Chudgar is not just and proper and requires consideration whereas the complainant has narrated the reasons regarding the delay in her complaint also. Not only that the claim form submitted by the complainant was admittedly accepted by the appellant. According to the appellant certain documents were called for by the appellant which were not submitted. But the fact remains that when the claim form has been submitted and documents produced, it was bounden duty of the appellant to process the claim of the complainant as expeditiously as possible. The insured died of accident is also not in dispute. The policy was in force when the accident occurred. Risk has been covered. The main object of taking insurance is to ensure that upon the death of the person insured, his dependents should not suffer financially and the dependents can live their lives with the amount of insurance. The Forum has considered all aspects and delay has been condoned. Because of untimely death of her husband, who is the sole breadwinner of the family, widow may be under shock and stress and she being practically illiterate woman, would have required some time to settle. Once she has requested for the insurance amount, the insurance company should not have denied the claim on the ground of delay in intimating the claim and dragged her into litigation. In our opinion, this is nothing but unfair trade practice adopted by the insurance company. We hope that in future, in such cases, the insurance company will act fairly and reasonably and ensure that because of its act, the other side is not put to hardship. It is also required to be noted that the insurance company has to be vigilant in cases of delay etc. At the same time, in a given case, the company should appreciate the reasons for delay also. The case on hand is one where the company ought to have considered the delay in the right earnest. In above facts of the matter, in our view, the order passed by the District Forum requires no interference. The appeal requires to be rejected. Rejected accordingly at the stage of admission.
(3.) THE Id. advocate for the appellant has submitted that the insurance company has deposited relevant amount as ordered by this Commission. Office is directed to verify the record and if any amount is found to have been deposited by the appellant in the present proceedings, same may be refunded to it with interest, if any, accrued thereon, by A/c. Payee cheque issued in the name of the appellant. The cheque may be handed over to the attending advocate for handing over the same to the appellant, after following proper procedure. Appeal No. 1938 of 2013 stands disposed of accordingly.;