K.S. Chaudhari, Presiding Member
This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner/OP against the order dated 18.07.2012 passed by the Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Panchkula (in short, the State Commission) in Appeal No. 341/2007 “ LIC of India Vs. Mr. Gyaninder by which, while dismissing appeal with cost of Rs.5,000/-, order of District Forum allowing complaint was upheld.
2. Brief facts of the case are that insured Gyaninder, brother of the Complainant/respondent obtained insurance policy on 28.5.2002 for Rs.1,00,000/- with double accidental benefits from OP/petitioner disclosing income of Rs.60,000/- p.a. from agriculture. Later on, Gyaninder obtained another policy of Rs. 10,00,000/- with double accidental benefits. Gyaninder died on 10.8.2003 in a road accident. Complainant lodged claim with the OP which was repudiated on the ground that assured had given wrong information regarding his annual income. Alleging deficiency on the part of OP, complainant filed complaint before District Forum. OP contested complaint. Learned District Forum after hearing both the parties allowed complaint and directed OP to pay Rs.2,00,000/- along with 10% p.a. interest and Rs.1,000/- as litigation cost. Appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed by learned State Commission vide impugned order and further directed that cost of Rs.5,000/- be recovered from the pockets of erring officials of the petitioner, who are responsible for repudiating genuine claim of the complainant against which, this revision petition has been filed.
3. None appeared for the respondent, but by letter dated 3.9.2013, respondent expressed that matter may be decided.
4. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and perused record.
5. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that order of imposition of cost of Rs.5,000/- and recovery of the same from officials was unwarranted; hence, revision petition be accepted and order imposing cost be set aside.
6. Perusal of record clearly reveals that assured Gyaninder obtained two insurance policies from petitioner for Rs.1,00,000/- and Rs.10,00,000/- and disclosed income of Rs.60,000/- p.a. while obtaining first policy and income of Rs.1,20,000/- while obtaining second policy. First policy was obtained on 28.5.2002 and second policy was obtained on 15.9.2002 and assured died on 10.8.2003. Petitioner repudiated the claim on the ground of giving wrong information regarding annual income while obtaining second policy. Ld. State Commission opined that plea taken by petitioner for repudiating claim had no force and rightly upheld order of District Forum allowing complaint, but while dismissing appeal, cost of Rs.5,000/- was imposed with a direction that money may be recovered from the pocket of erring officials, who repudiated the claim.
7. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has drawn our attention towards Section 47 of the Life Insurance Corporation Act according to which, no suit, prosecution or other legal proceedings shall lie against any member or employee of the Corporation for anything which is in good faith done or intended to be done under this Act.
8. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has also placed reliance on 2013 (2) SCALE 239 - LucknowDevelopment Authority Vs. ShyamKapoor in which, Honble Apex Court set aside cost imposed upon the appellant by the National Commission.
9. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that as assured disclosed double income in the second insurance policy which was taken just after 4 months which required investigation and in such circumstances, officials of the petitioner repudiated claim and repudiation of claim was made in good faith. In such circumstances, order imposing cost was not warranted.
10. In normal course, claim should not have been repudiated, but it appears that claim was repudiated, as assured disclosed double income just after 4 months before obtaining second insurance policy and in such circumstances, imposition of cost by learned State Commission was unwarranted, particularly, looking to the fact that in other appeal filed by the petitioner, learned State Commission partly allowed appeal and modified order of District Forum awarding Rs.20,00,000/- and Rs.10,00,000/-. Cost could have been imposed only by District Forum for repudiation of claim.
11. In such circumstances, we allow revision petition and modify order dated 18.7.2012 passed by learned State Commission in Appeal No. 341/2007 “ LIC Vs. Gyaninder and order imposing cost of Rs.5,000/- is set aside and rest of the order is affirmed.