Page 21 - Banking Finance January 2020

LEGAL UPDATE

LEGAL

CASES
CASES
CASES
CASES
CASES

Civic officials prosecuted Complaint possible for Ulip claim

for water pollution The National Commission had decided that disputes pertaining to unit-linked
insurance plans (Ulips) would not fall within the ambit of the Consumer Protec-
The Supreme Court ruled that mu- tion Act since the units are investments made in the stock market and traded
nicipal com- for speculative gains. However, in an important ruling recently, the National
missioners and Commission has now distinguished that its interpretation would not apply in the
chief officers
of the munici- case of a death benefit claim under the same policy.
pal council can Paramjit Kaur's husband, Balbir Singh, had taken a Ulip from MetLife Insurance.
be prosecuted under the Water (Pre- The policy, which was issued on February 20, 2008, was to mature after a pe-
vention and Control of Pollution) Act. riod of 20 years. The sum assured was Rs. 4,80,000 for which the quarterly
The Karnataka High Court had premium was Rs. 6,000. The Policy provided that in case of death before matu-
quashed prosecution against them. rity, the nominee would be entitled to receive the investment value along with
The State Pollution Control Board the sum insured. After Balbir expired on September 25, 2008, his widow Paramjit
challenged that order. In this case, lodged a claim as the nominee. The insurer repudiated it on the ground that
Karnataka Pollution Control Board vs the policy was not in force on the date of death. It said the policy had lapsed
B. Heera Naik, the complaint against due to non-payment of the premium instalments.
the civic officials was that it had ac-
corded consent to the officials to dis- Relief more than what victim asked for
charge sewage effluent after treat-
ment which had expired in 2006 but The Supreme Court has ruled that in road accidents, the tribunal has the power
not been renewed. to grant compensation to victims more than they had asked for. Citing an ear-
lier ruling, the judgment in the case jabbar vs Maharashtra Road Transport
The condition that the officials Corporation stated that "there is no restriction that the court cannot award
should provide sewage treatment
compensation exceeding the claimed amount since the function of the tribunal
plant within six months was also vio- or court under Section 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act is to award 'just compen-
lated. Instead, the accused continu- sation'". In this case, a fruit seller had to amputate his arm in a bus accident.
ously discharged untreated sewage
into the water bodies. The Supreme He wanted Rs. 9 lakh for loss of income throughout life but he reduced the
Court stated that all companies as demand to Rs. 3 lakh because he could not pay the necessary court fee. He
wells as "body corporates" could be further submitted that if he was granted a higher amount as compensation, he
held guilty of offences under the ACt. was willing to pay the difference in court fee. The tribunal granted Rs. 1.5 lakh
"There cannot be any dispute that only. The Bombay High Court raised it to Rs. 2.5 lakh. On appeals, the Supreme
city municipal council is a body cor- Court decided that Rs. 5 lakh with 9 per cent interest from the date of the
porate," the court ruled. accident would be just and reasonable, though he had asked for a lower amount.

BANKING FINANCE | JANUARY | 2020 | 21