LAWS(MPCDRC)-2008-2-1

GENDRAO LIKHITKAR Vs. G M , (KARMIK) (PENSION & S S S ), WESTERN COAL FIELD HEAD OFFICE, NAGPUR & ANR

Decided On February 06, 2008
Gendrao Likhitkar Appellant
V/S
G M , (Karmik) (Pension And S S S ), Western Coal Field Head Office, Nagpur And Anr Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against order dated 26.12.2006 passed in C.C. No. 54/2003 by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Betul (for short 'Forum').

(2.) THE case in brief is that the complainant (appellant here) an employee of Western Coalfields Limited (for short WCL), who was covered under the Group Janta Personal Accident Insurance Policy No. 47/160202/0356 finalized between WCL, opposite party No. 1 and the New India Assurance Company Limited, opposite party No. 2 (respondent No. 1 and 2 respectively here), met with an accident on 14.10.2001 while travelling in WCL's bus No. MP -05 A -7555 and sustained fracture in two fingers of the left hand and humerus bone of the right hand. The accident was duly reported to the opposite party Nos. 1 and 2, besides the police. All the injured passengers including complainant filed their claims before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT), Betul which vide order dated 26.7.2003 awarded compensation of Rs. 51,300 to the complainant. However, his claim under the said Group Janta Personal Accident Insurance Policy to the opposite party No. 2 was repudiated on the ground that the accident was reported quite late on 8.2.2002 and that the injury suffered did not cause permanent disability. Aggrieved this the complainant filed complaint under Section 12 of the C.P. Act before the Forum.

(3.) IN its reply before the Forum, the opposite party No. 2 (the Insurance Company) reiterated the grounds of repudiation and stated that the claim under the said policy would be admissible only in the case of permanent loss of limb or eye. After hearing both the parties the learned Forum observed that repudiation was justified in view of the express terms and conditions of the policy and vide impugned order rejected his complaint.