KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
VAZHUTHACAUD THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
APPEAL NO.311/10
JUDGMENT DATED 18.2.2011
PRESENT
SHRI.M.V.VISWANATHAN -- JUDICIAL MEMBER
SHRI.M.K.ABDULLA SONA -- MEMBER
The Branch Manager,
LIC of India, Branch Office,
New Happy Shopping Office,
Market Road, Nileshwaranm -- APPELLANT
Kasargod District.
(By Adv.G.S.Kalkura)
Vs.
A.Karunakaran,
S/0 late K.Krishnan, Krishnalayam,
Manchipuram, Near Railway station, -- RESPONDENT
P.O,Cheruvathur, Kasargod District.
JUDGMENT
SRI.M.V.VISWANATHAN,JUDICIAL MEMBER
Appellant was the opposite party and respondent was the complainant in CC.No.165/09 on the file of CDRF, Kasaragod. The complaint therein was filed alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party LIC of India in repudiating the claim of the complainant for refund of the premium amount remitted by the complainant as policy holder of the Insurance Policy No.794069604. Notice in the said CC.No.165/09 was served on the opposite party and the Branch Manager LIC of India Neeleshwaram entered appearance and filed written version denying the alleged deficiency in service. It was contended that the aforesaid life policy became lapsed due to non payment of the Insurance premium and that the complainant/ life assured is not entitled to get refund of the premium amount remitted by him because of the Condition No.7 of the Life Insurance Policy issued in the name of the complainant/life assured. It was also contended that the life assured failed to remit the premium at least for three (3) years. Hence no paid up value has been acquired by the said policy. Thus, the opposite party prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
2. The Forum below by accepting the submissions made by the counsel for the complainant and also the counsel for the opposite party passed the impugned order dated 9th November 2009 directing the opposite party to revive the policy on receipt of the arrears of the policy premiums. It is against the aforesaid order; the present appeal is preferred by the opposite party/LIC of India.
3. We heard both sides.
4. The learned counsel for the appellant/opposite party submitted his arguments based on the grounds urged in the memorandum of the present appeal. He much relied on the contentions adopted by the opposite party/LIC of India in the written version filed in CC.No.165/09 and argued for the position that the Forum below cannot be justified in directing the opposite party/LIC of India to revive the lapsed policy on receipt of the arrears of the policy premiums. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent/complainant submitted his arguments by relying on the entries made in the proceeding paper maintained by the CDRF, Kasaragod in CC.No.165/09. It is further submitted that the impugned order was passed by the Forum below based on the submissions made by both parties to the complaint in CC.No.165/09 and that the impugned order is to be treated as a compromise decree passed by the Forum below. Thus, the respondent prayed for dismissal of the present appeal.
5. This State Commission have received the Lower Court Records from CDRF, Kasaragod in CC No.165/09. We had the occasion and opportunity to peruse the proceeding paper maintained by the CDRF, Kasaragod in CC.No.165/09. The aforesaid proceeding paper would make it clear that the complaint in CC.165/09 was taken on the file of CDRF, Kasaragod on 15.7.09 and notice was issued to the opposite party for appearance on 24.8.09. The aforesaid notice was issued to the opposite party on 28.7.09 and the opposite party entered appearance before the Forum below through Advocate Sri.A.Balakrishnan Nair, Kasaragod. The case was then adjourned to 18.9.09 for the written version of the opposite party. The complainant was also represented through the counsel of his choice. Thereafter, the complaint was adjourned to 6.10.09. On 6.10.09, the opposite party/LIC of India filed version and the matter adjourned for evidence of the complainant to 28.10.09. On 28.10.09 complainant was present and the opposite party agreed to settle the matter. Hence, the case was adjourned to 6.11.09 for settlement. On 6.11.09 complainant was present and opposite party was represented and submitted that the opposite party is ready to revive the policy of the complainant on payment of the policy premium. Thus, the forum below adjourned the case to 9.11.09 for settlement. Thereafter, on 9.11.09 complainant was present and the opposite party was represented. Complainant agreed to pay the arrears of premium within one week to get the policy revived. Thereby, the Forum below allowed the complainant with direction to pay the arrears and that the opposite party was directed to revive the policy on receipt of arrears and the complaint was allowed as settled. Thus, the Forum below passed the impugned order based on the submissions made by the complainant and the counsel for the opposite party. It is also to be noted that the complainant had also filed a statement dated 6.11.09 expressing his readiness to pay the arrears of premium within one week from 6.11.09. The aforesaid statement dated 6.11.09 is signed by the complainant A.Karunakaran and the said statement forms part of the Lower Court Records. Thus, the Lower Court Records especially the proceeding paper maintained by the CDRF, Kasaragod in CC.No.165/09 would make it clear that the impugned order was passed based on the submissions made by the complainant and the counsel for the opposite party and the impugned order was passed as the matter has been settled by the parties to the complaint in CC.No.165/09. It can also be seen that the Forum below had no occasion to consider the dispute involved in CC.No.165/09 on merits. But, the impugned order was passed as the complaint is settled between the parties. So, the present appeal filed by the opposite party by disputing the impugned order passed by the CDRF, Kasaragod in CC.No.165/09 is legally not maintainable. It is to be noted that the complaint was allowed as settled and the said order dated 9.11.09 in CC.No.165/09 was passed based on the submissions made by the complainant and the counsel for the opposite party/LIC of India.
6. The appellant/opposite party has no case that their counsel had not made any such submissions before the Forum below. There is also no case for the appellant/opposite party that the entries in the proceeding paper maintained by CDRF, Kasaragod are not based on the submissions made by the counsel for the opposite party/LIC of India. There is nothing on record to doubt the genuineness and correctness of the entries made by the Forum below in the proceeding paper maintained in CC.No.165/09. It is further to be noted that the concerned counsel for the opposite party in CC.No.165/09 on the file of CDRF, Kasaragod has not filed any affidavit stating that he did not make any such submission before the Forum below in CC.No.165/09. The concerned counsel who filed vakalath for the opposite party in CC No.165/09 has no case that the entries in the proceeding paper made by the Forum below are not correct or those entries are made not on the basis of the submissions made by the counsel for the opposite party. Thus, it can very safely be held that the impugned order was passed by the Forum below based on the submissions made by the parties to the complaint in CC.No.165/09 and the complaint was allowed as settled.
7. The mere fact that the complaint in CC.165/09 was filed for getting refund of the insurance premium remitted by the complainant/ life assured cannot be taken as a ground to hold that the parties were prevented from settling the matter in a different way. It is to be noted that when the matter came up for consideration, the parties agreed for settlement of the dispute involved in CC.165/09 and thereby the opposite party/LIC of India Kasaragod Branch agreed to revive the lapsed life policy issued in the name of the respondent/complainant (policy holder) on getting the arrears of the insurance premium. It is to be noted that there was provision for revival of the lapsed life policy. In the present case, the opposite party LIC of India expressed their readiness to revive the policy on payment of the arrears of premium. It is based on the said admission or submission the Forum below passed the impugned order directing the opposite party LIC of India, Kasaragod Branch to revive the life policy issued in the name of the respondent/complainant on receipt of arrears of the insurance premiums. There is nothing wrong in passing the impugned order based on the submissions made by the parties to the complaint in CC.No.165/09. There is no sustainable ground to interfere with the impugned order dated 9.11.09 passed by CDRF, Kasaragod in CC.165/09. The present appeal preferred by the opposite party in the said CC.165/09 lacks bonafides and the same deserves dismissal. Hence we do so.
In the result, the appeal is dismissed. The impugned order dated 9/11/09 passed by CDRF, Kasaragod in CC.No.165/09 is confirmed. The parties to this appeal are directed to suffer their respective costs.
M.V.VISWANATHAN -- JUDICIAL MEMBER
M.K.ABDULLA SONA -- MEMBER
