  
        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.  
         
         
         |