- (1.) BY way of this Civil Miscellaneous Application the original opponent No.2 - the New India Assurance Co. Ltd. has prayed for condonation of delay of around 175 days in filing appeal against the ex parte order dated 7th August, 2003 rendered by the learned Ahmedabad City Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum in Complaint No.754/2001 directing the opponent No.2 Insurance Company to pay to the complainant, widow of the insured, Rs.50,000/ - with running interest @ 12% p. a. from the date of repudiation i. e. , 7.5.2001 till payment and cost and compensation in the sum of Rs.2,000/ - each.
(2.) IT would appear from the facts of the case that Mr. Himatlal K. Shah, complainant's husband had taken membership in the Ten Years Welfare Endowment Certificate under Social Welfare Scheme of the original opponent No.1 - the Peerless General Finance and Investment Company Ltd. under which the risk of life on account of accident was covered by the opponent No.2 Insurance Company as per the contract between the said two opponents. The insured went on paying subscription under the scheme from 13.8.1991 for a period of 10 years and died in the earthquake which struck the vast area of the State of Gujarat on or around 26th January, 2001. This resulted into the complainant preferring the claim for the risk of accident. Opponent No.2 Insurance Company by repudiation letter dated 7th May, 2001 rejected the claim on the ground that 'no claim due to the age of the deceased certificate holder being over 65 years could be said to be covered under the policy condition'.
(3.) LEARNED Forum came to the conclusion that the opponent No.2 did not appear before the learned Forum though duly served and also did not produce any terms and conditions of the policy. From the material placed on record learned Forum came to the conclusion that the opponent No.2 did not disclose to the insured the terms and conditions of the policy. Learned Forum, therefore, accepted the submission of the complainant that there was deficiency in service on the part of the opponents, opponent No.2 in particular and passed the impugned order. As stated above the opponent No.2 Insurance Company has taken nearly 175 days for filing the present appeal and, therefore, preferred this application for condonation of delay. We have gone through the impugned order. We have gone through the grounds stated in the application for condonation of delay. On one hand there clearly appears to be un -pardonable delay for which the grounds given cannot be said to be sufficient and on the other hand the impugned order passed by the learned Forum cannot be faulted. It is not in dispute that the risk of the life of the deceased on account of the accident was covered. What is sought to be canvassed as per the condition of the policy is that the insured died after he crossed the age of 65 years. Therefore, as per the condition of the policy the complainant is not entitled to the claim of insurance. Learned Forum came to the conclusion that no terms and conditions were communicated to the insured so as to bind the insured by the condition which is canvassed in this appeal. No evidence has been adduced to show that the insured came to be communicated with the terms and conditions of the policy. In view of what is stated above we do not find any reason for condonation of delay and hence this application is rejected. Appeal dismissed.;