Justice S.K. Kulshrestha, President (Oral):

1. This appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as `the Act'), is directed against the order dated 23.10.2009 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Morena, in case No. 79/09.

2. Case of the respondent-complainant before the District Forum was that policy No. 200898599 was obtained by Rahul Sharma son of complainant-Rabudi Devi (respondent herein), of the insured value of र 50,000, for which he deposited र 1,326 every quarterly. The appellant was the nominee. From 27.10.2001, the insured son of the appellant was lost and his whereabouts could not be traced, about which report was lodged at the police station, Bagchini. Efforts were made continuously but the insured could not be found. Though presumption of death of a person can be made if the whereabouts are not known for a period of 7 years and if he is not noticed by a person by whom he was otherwise likely to be seen, there is a presumption of death. The District Forum however, directed that the amount of premium deposited by Rahul Sharma @ Banty be refunded to the appellant-nominee with interest @ 6% from 27.10.2001 and cost र 1,500.

3. Learned Counsel for appellant Mr. Neelesh Khare has raised two-fold contention. His first contention is that merely on account of absence of 7 years and his whereabouts not known, it does not entail presumption that he is dead. In this behalf learned Counsel has referred to decision of the Supreme Court in the case of L.I.C. of India v. Anuradha, (2004) 2 ACC 44 (SC) : (2004) 2 CLT 5 (SC) : (2004) 2 SLT 1065 : AIR 2004 SC 2070, in which the Supreme Court has ruled that for proving every death it is necessary that death could be correlated to the point of time coinciding with the commencement of calculation of seven years backwards from the date of initiation of legal proceedings.

4. The second contention of the learned Counsel is that paid up value of the policy can be paid to the nominee only if the policy has lapsed after three years. The Supreme Court in the said decision has also held that the policy lapses because of non-payment of premium before three years, then the person claiming is not entitled to any amount.

5. Under these circumstances, the District Fo

rum has erred in holding that the appellant was entitled to refund of the premium with interest @ 6% and in awarding र 1,500 as cost. This appeal, therefore, succeeds and the impugned order of the District Forum is set aside. Appeal allowed.