Widow
allowed insurance cover
Tribune
News Service
PANCHKULA, May 6
The Haryana Vidyut Prasaran Nigam (HVPN) has been
directed by the local consumer court to pay Rs 25,000 to
the widow of its employee on account of an insurance
cover under a Group Saving Linked Insurance Scheme of
Life Insurance Corporation (LIC).
The complainant, Ms
Sharda Kumari, submitted before the District Consumer
Disputes Redressal Forum that her husband, Mr J.M.Mehta,
joined the HSEB, now HVPN, in 1962 as assistant store
keeper and was subsequently promoted as head store
keeper. In January 1991, the nigam introduced the Group
Saving Linked Insurance Scheme for the welfare and
benefit of its employees through the LIC.
As per the scheme, Rs 50
was deducted from the salary of the complainant's
husband, of which an amount of Rs 17.50 went towards the
insurance premium and the remaining Rs 32.50 was for
saving fund. Mr Mehta expired on March 11,1993, when
still in service and had not attained the age of
superannuation.
Counsel of the HVPN said
that the husband of the complainant remained absent from
duty from July 1991 to March 1993 i.e till the date of
his death. Due to his prolonged absence from duty, no
contribution was remitted to the LIC and so he was no
entitled to any benefit due to the policy of the board
framed in July 1990.
The LIC through its
counsel said no risk was covered on the life of the
deceased as his employer did not permit any amount of
premium.
The forum observed that
the deceased was not absent from duty but on leave. He
was getting salary for the earned leave. It said both the
complainant and the HVPN were liable for contributory
negligence. However, no fault was found on part of the
LIC.
The complainant has been
allowed Rs 500 as costs of the proceedings. The order has
to be complied within one month from the date of its
communication.
Cielo
owner to get Rs 4.60 lakh
Tribune
News Service
CHANDIGARH, May 6
The UT Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission has
directed New India Assurance Company, Chandigarh, to pay
Rs 4.60 lakh to the complainant, whose damaged Cielo GLE
automatic transmission car was insured with them.
The Commission
comprising its President, Justice J.B Garg, and member,
Col P.K Vasudeva, also asked the respondents to pay
interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum, beginning
from May 21, 1998, till its realisation, along with cost
of Rs 3000.
According to the
complainant, Mr Rajiv Atma Ram, his Cielo car, which was
insured with the respondent company, was completely
damaged on February 20, 1998, when while trying to save a
milk vendor it first hit against a tree and thereafter an
electric pole.
The complainant
submitted that even though the surveyor had submitted a
report recommending settlement of the case as total loss
by paying Rs 4.60 lakh to the complainant, the insurance
company did not pay the claim to the insured.
In its reply, the
insurance company stated that the amount could not be
paid because its head office declined to give approval to
the claim on total loss cases and instead it advised that
the claim should be settled on cash loss basis.
After going through the
records, the commission observed that the Regional
Manager of the insurance company at Chandigarh was
satisfied with the examination of the vehicle and the
report of the surveyor . The mere fact that the head
office at Calcutta did not agree o the total loss
settlement did not have any importance as it was without
appointing a second surveyor and without physical
examination of the car.
The commission,
therefore, held the insurance company guilty of
deficiency for causing undue delay in settling and making
the payment to the complainant, more so because the
accident and total loss was an admitted fact. It,
however, observed that the salvage of the car lying with
its dealer would go to the insurance company.
Loss
of baggage
The District Consumer
Disputes Redressal Forum-II comprising its President, Mr
R.P Bajaj, and members, Mr H.S Walia and Mrs Kamlesh
Gupta, has directed United Airlines to pay a sum of Rs
10,000 to a complainant for temporary loss of his
baggage.
The complainant, Mr S.C
Nagpal of Sector 8, had filed a complaint alleging that
one out of his three pieces of baggage did not reach with
his flight at New Delhi airport on July 1, 1996. The
airlines asked him to wait till the next day and
therefore his family had to stay in a hotel and hire two
rooms. However, the baggage could not be traced even on
the next date. Later on July 20, he received a message
that the baggage had been traced and that he should reach
Delhi to claim the same. On inspection, the baggage was
found to be without lock and in torn condition.
He further alleged that
certain expensive items were missing and he filed a claim
with the airlines authorities. The airlines paid him a
compensation of Rs 5,200 but the complainant was not
satisfied with it. In the complaint he claimed a total
sum of Rs 4, 14,400.
In its reply the
airlines contended that the traced baggage weighed 34 kg
whereas the maximum weight allowed was only 32 kg. The
complainant had not paid excess weight charges nor had he
declared the excess weight. The allegations regarding
loss of items were also alleged to be false.
After going through the
records, the forum observed that `` having failed to give
appropriate declaration and under the Warsaw Convention
of 1929, the complainant cannot justifiably ask for
compensation for the loss of such items. The additional
charges were not paid to render the airlines liable for
compensation.
''The forum declined to
consider the question of quantum of pilferage as it
required voluminous evidence which was not possible under
the summary proceedings.
The forum, however,
observed that since the complainant had undergone mental
agony and harassment and had to pay several visits to
Delhi to pursue the claim and collect the baggage, he was
entitled to a compensation of Rs 15,000. As a sum of Rs
5,000 had already been paid, the forum directed the
payment of Rs 10,000 more to the complainant within one
month.
|