West Bengal

Darjeeling

CC/14/2021

Binod Kumar Chaurasia - Complainant(s)

Versus

AXIS BANK LTD - Opp.Party(s)

24 May 2023

ORDER

                              Consumer Complaint No- C.C- 14/2021

        Date of Filing                                                        Date of Disposal

        O4.10.2021                                                               24.05.2023

    Complainant                                                 Opposite Parties

 Sri.Binod Kumar Chaurasia,                   1. Axis Bank Ltd,

 S/O  Parasnath Prasad Chaurasia              D.S. Gurung Road,

 Resident Of:-                                                 Near Damber Chowk

 Ward No.5, Main Road,                              P.O, P.S & Dist:-Kalimpong,

 P.O, P.S & Dist:- Kalimpong                        Pin Code: 734301.

 Pin Code: 734301.

                                                                   2. Tata AIG General Insurance Co. Ltd,

                                                                        Peninsula Business Park,

                                                                        Tower-A, 15^th Floor,

                                                                        Ganapatrao Kadam  Marg,

                                                                        Lower Parel,Mumbai,

                                                                        Maharastra- 400013.

 Present:-    Sri. Siddhartha Ganguli…………. Hon’ble President-in- Charge.

                     Mrs.   Bhawana  Thakuri……….. Hon’ble Member( Female).

 Ld. Advocate for the Complainant:-     Hasang Bhutia, Rajeswar Sharma.

 Ld. Advocate for the Opposite Party No.1 :- Durga Kharel,

     Ld. Advocate for the Opposite Party No.2 :-Ex-parte.

Page-2

C.C- 14 of 2021

F I N A L     O R D E R

 Dated:- 24.05.2023

       Mrs. Bhawana Thakuri (Member):-An application has been filed by the Complainant u/s 2(7) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, against the Opposite Party No.1 Axis Bank Ltd and Opposite Party no.2 Tata AIG Insurance Company Ltd alleging gross deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties coupled with unfair trade practice with regard to two Insurance Policies being nos. (a) 0235377794 for Rs. 5,00,000/- for the year 2017-18 and (b) 0235377822 for Rs. 10,00,000/- for the year 2017-19 which the Complainant had purchased from Opposite Partyno.2 from Bank assurance Arrangement and prays for compensation and damages for closure of Complainant’s business @ Rs.20,00,000/( Rupees Twenty Lakh Only) along with   compensation for mental harassment and agony @ Rs. 15,00,000/ ( Rupees Fifteen Lakh Only) and for  compensation for damages for delay in operation at Chennai and for the Complainant’s stay in Chennai @ Rs. 20,00,000/( Rupees Twenty Lakh Only), in total Rs. 55,00,000/ ( Rupees Fifty Five Lakh Only). Further, the Complainant has prayed for payment of  litigation cost of Rs. 1,00,000/( Rupees One Lakh Only)and restoration of policy proposal being No:- 0235377794.

      The gist fact of the case in a nutshell is that, the Complainant is a saving account holder with the Opposite Party no.1. While the Opposite Party no.2 is a insurer having tied up with its corporate agent the Opposite Party no.1.       The Complainant was approached by the Opposite Party no.1 agent viz Mr. Paul Lepcha for the sale of Policies (a) ) 0235377794, S.A- Rs.5,00,000/ for the year 2017-2018  and  (b) 0235377822, S.A- 10,00,000/ for the year 2017-2019 and the complainant purchased the said above two policies.

      The Opposite Party no.1’s Agent asked for the photocopies of the Complainant’s PAN Card, Voter Card and Aadhar Card which was duly handed over by the Complainant. The Agent in turn assured that he would

Page-3

C.C- 14 of 2021

       fill all the details in the proposal forms and asked the complainant to merely sign on the blank forms in the places shown and pointed to the Complainant by the Agent.

      It is stated by the Complainant that being an educated person and well aware of the consequences of non-disclosure of pre-existing disease clauses of the insurance companies’ briefed the Agent regarding his pre-existing ailments (diabetes, hypertension and kidney disease) for the Complainant had no reason to conceal them. On good faith the Complainant handed over the signed proposal forms along with the Complainant’s Pan Card, Voter Card and the Aadhar Card to the Agent upon the Agent’s assurance that the Policy of the Complainant would be given effect within 7 (Seven) days. The Complainant also demanded from the Opposite Parties and also from the Agent, a copy of his proposal forms as per the norms of the IRDAI. However, the same was not complied with. The Complainant had no reason to believe that the Agent would not execute his work diligently and according to the instructions and information given to the agent by the Complainant.

       It is stated by the Complainant that in the month of July 2019 when the Complainant made a cashless claim in Apollo Hospital, Chennai for a rental operation, the Complainant got utter shock and dismay and came to know that the Opposite Party no.2 did not honour his claim and denied cashless approval, which was being assured to the Complainant at the time of purchasing the aforesaid policies.

       Further, it is stated by the Complainant that he was assured 60 days pre-hospitalization and 90 days post hospitalisation Day Care Procedure (including dialysis) and the ambulances charges but while the Complainant made the cashless claim he was denied the same by the Opposite Party no.2. On enquiry of the denial of the claim of the Complainant, the Opposite Party no.2 informed the Complainant that he was hit by clause of

Page-4

C.C- 14 of 2021

      non- disclosure of the pre- existing disease/ailment whilst filing in the proposal form. As a result of which later in the month of October 2019, the Opposite Party no.2 cancelled both the policies. The Complainant wrote and talked over to the Opposite Parties yet the Opposite Parties failed to answer the Complainant’s prayers.

       Due to the denial of the claim the Complainant wrote multitude of e-mails to the Opposite Parties, but the same was replied to the Complainant by the Opposite Parties with no relief to the Complainant. The Complainant through e-mail dated 14^th October 2019 to the Opposite Party no.2 demanded the copies of his proposal forms, which was supplied to the Complainant on 14^th October, 2019 through e-mail.

      After perusal the proposal form the Complainant found out that the agent, who assured the complainant with the quality service had himself missed filled the pre-existing disease/conditions of the Complainant with “YES” rather than filling the said column to be ticked/answered with “NO”.  It was much to shock the Complainant when he discovered that the said Agent had faked the Complainant’s signature in one of the places in the Policy No: 0235377794 and even made errors in the spelling of the Complainant’s name. Additionally, to all the glitches the relationship of the nominee (Tara Chaurasia) to the Complainant was put as mother, who actually is the Complainant’s wife.

       It is also discovered by the Complainant that the Agent had himself left the AGENT’S DECLARATION portion of the form blank and unsigned. While the Opposite Parties in each case that arises expects their customer to follow norms and accept each of their terms and condition, herein they themselves have error in not closing the contract/agreement and there was only unilateral acceptance from the Complaint’s end.

Page-5

C.C- 14 of 2021

       According to the Complainant, he had raised the issue with the Opposite Parties multiple times. The Complainant on 14.12.2019 received from the Opposite Party No.1 a letter dated NIL admitting the fake signature in Policy Proposal No. 0235377794 and the Opposite Parties proposed the Complainant to refund the premium paid by him. While the other Policy Proposal No. 0235377822 was cancelled without any refund of the premium amount. Since the Complainant having no recourse and remedy and also being advised and on being advised and requested by the Chief Manager- Customer Grievance Redressal Tata AIG General Insurance Company Limited, the Complainant moved the Insurance Ombudsman for the redresses of the Complainant’s grievance. The Complainant moved the Insurance Ombudsman, Chennai for redresses of his grievance and since he is a resident of West Bengal, the said Complaint of the Complainant filed before Insurance Ombudsman, Chennai was then transferred to the West Bengal Insurance Ombudsman, which was dismissed on 11.02.2020, vide Award No. IO/KOL/A/HI/0010/2019-2020 by it. However, the office of the West Bengal Insurance Ombudsman on 14.02.2020 on their cover letter was pleased to observe through its Asst/Dy. Secretary that the Complainant may move a fresh application at any other forum/ Court. Hence, the Complainant himself finding him to be a “Consumer “under section-2(7) of the Consumer Protection Act 2019, filed this complaint before this Commission.

      It is further stated by the Complainant that after umpteenth effort of the Complainant on 24.03.2021,the policy with proposal No.0235377822/Policy No. 0238880295 00 for the period 20.03.2021 to 19.03.2023. While restoring the proposal No.0235377822/Policy No. 0238880295 00 the Opposite Party no.2 have admitted the complainant’s pre-existing diseases and incorporated the same. However, the other Policy proposal being No. 0235377794 is still stacked, as being invalid and cancelled.

Page-6

C.C- 14 of 2021

      Further, according to the Complainant, the Opposite Party no.1 had without any authorisation or Debit Voucher debited the Complainant’s account at the time of initiation of the policies.  However, at the time of subsequent restoration of the policy proposal No.0235377822/Policy No. 0238880295 00 has obtained debit vouchers from the Complainant. As such, the Complainant alleges such callous acts of the Opposite Parties as gross contravention of a fair trade practice and making Opposite Parties culpable of deficiency in services.

      The Complainant further alleges that the Opposite Parties due to the cancellation of the policies the Complainant’s normal work and business was forced to close due to his immobility. The complainant complains that he was forced to bear the fees of his children, who were then studying out of the State. The Complaint further states in his complaint that it is due to Opposite Parties that the complainant underwent tremendous mental and physical harassment. The Complainant further alleges that the said predicament was faced not only by the Complainant but also by his entire family for a period of 8-9 months. The Complaint has clearly pointes out in his complaint mentioning that the Reserve Bank of India, Kolkata has also  reflected in its letter dated 24.05.2021 [Ref No: Kol/OBO/S28/01.01.102/2021-22] about the bank’s dereliction and fraud upon the Complainant by his faking his signature.

      Having no other alternative, the complainant has instituted this Consumer Complaint before this Commission for proper relief and adequate compensation for the deficiency in service, false and unfair trade practice.

The Complainant prays for the following reliefs:-

That the direction be given to the Opposite Parties for payment of :-

1. Compensation and damages for closure for Complainant’s Business@ Rs. 20,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty Lakhs only).
2.  

Page-7

C.C- 14 of 2021

2. Compensation for the mental harassment and agony @ Rs. 15,00,000/-    ( Rupees Fifteen Lakh Only)
3. Compensation for Damages for delay in operation at Chennai and for the Complainant’s stay in
4. Litigation costs all throughout @Rs. 1,00,000/-( Rupees One Lakh only)
5. Restoration of Policy Proposal being no. 0235377794.

The Complainant has filed the following Xerox documents along with the complaint petition and subsequently filed the said documents in order to prove his case.

List of documents filed by the Complainant:-

1. Application No. 139568872- Proposal No. 0235377794 for Rs. 5,00,000/- for the year 2017-2018, dated 03.03.2017.
2. Application No. 139568342- Proposal No. 0235377822 for Rs. 10,00,000/- for the year 2017-2019, dated 03.03.2017.
3. Letter Termination of Policy No. 0235377794, dated 07.10.2019.                                                                                                                                      
4.  Letter Termination of Policy No. 0235377822, dated 07.10.2019
5. Emails of the Complainant to the O.P no.2, dated 12.10.2019 & 14.10.2019.
6. Email from the O.P No 2 to the Complainant scanned copies of the proposals 0235377794 and 0235377822, dated 15.10.2019 & 16.10.2019
7. Letter from the O.P No 1 to the complainant admitting mismatch in the complainant`s signature  date NIL.
8.  

C.C- 14 of 2021

8. Letter from the Reserve bank of India mentioning the Fraud in signature, dated 24.05.2021
9. Cover letter to the Insurance Ombudsman`s Award dated, 14.02.2020
10. Complainant and Award of the Insurance Ombudsman –Shri P.K. Rath, dated 05.11.2019
11.  Confirmation letter of restoration of proposal No .0235377822/ Policy No 0238880295 00 for the period 20.03.2021 to 19.03.2023, dated 19.03.2021
12.  Payment receipt for the proposal No. 0235377822/ Policy No. 0238880295 00 for the period 20.03.2021 to 19.03.2023, signed on 24.03.2021, dated 23.03.2021.     

      NOTICES have been issued to the Opposite Parties from this District Commission, Darjeeling. The said notices were sent through speed post EW911572635IN dated 25/11/2021 to Tata AIG Insurance Company Ltd,  Peninsula Business Park and through speed post EW 911572644IN dated 25/11/2021 to the Axis Bank Ltd and the District Commission fixed the case on 06.12.2021 for S/R, Appearance and , W/O & W/V by the O.Ps. It reveals from the case record that the Opposite Party No. 1 appeared before this Commission on 06.12.2021 and prayed for time for filing Written Version and this Commission allowed his prayer and fixed the case on 24.01.2021 for filing Written Version by the Opposite Party No. 1.

      On 24/01.2022 the Opposite Party no.1 files Written Version, but the Opposite Party no.2 did not file Written Version. Hence, next date 18.02.2022 was fixed for filing written version by the Opposite Party no.2.

      Further, it reveals from the case record being Order No:- 05,dated 18/02/2022 that the Opposite Party no.2 Tata AIG Insurance Company Limited received the copy of requisites filed with the notice but did not file Written Version despite receiving Notice. The Opposite Party no.2 did not turn up before this Commission. Therefore, the Commission has decided to proceed with the case ex-parte against Opposite Party no.2 and the Complainant was directed to file evidence-in-chief by 21/03/2022.

C.C- 14 of 2021

       When calculated, it is seen that the statutory period for filing W/V by the Opposite Party No:2 was over much before 18/02/2022.

      It is however seen from the case record that the Written Version was filed by the Opposite Party no.2 on 18/02/2022 itself, later after the passing of the order. However, it was not reflected in the order sheet and the same has not been accepted.

     It is seen from the order being No:- 06, dated 21.03.2022 that the O.P No:1 and the Complainant expressed to have no objection, if the O.P No:2 files Written Version on 11.04.2022 and this Commission passed an order directing the O.P No:2 to file Written Version on the next date invariably, otherwise, cost of Rs. 1,700/ ( Rupees One Thousand Seven Hundred only) would be imposed upon O.P No:2 , which would be equally distributed  to the Complainant and the Opposite Party No.1.

      It is further seen from the Order No: 07, dated 11.04.2022 that again date had been extended by this Commission by fixing 26.04.2022 for filing W/V by the O.P No: 2, and it is directed that in default cost of Rs. 1,700/ (Rupees One Thousand Seven Hundred only) would be imposed upon O.P No:2, which would be equally divided by O.P No:1 and the Complainant.

      It is seen from the case record that subsequent to the order passed as noted above, the O.P No:2 never appeared in this case and no cost has been  paid by him. During the entire evidence stage, chances had been given to the O.P No:2 to take part in order to contest the case by putting questionnaire and by filing evidence mistakenly assuming and considering that  the W/V of the O.P No:2 was accepted earlier by this Commission  and the O.P No:2 had paid the cost amount. But neither the W/V of the O.P No:2 was accepted nor he paid the cost amount later on. As there was no continuation and proper reflection in the order sheet, such a mistake occurred, though it ought not to have been done.

C.C- 14 of 2021

        As the O.P No:2 did not file any W/V within the time frame as mentioned in the statute and as per the solemn order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, passed in New India Assurance Co. Ltd Vs Hilli Multipurpose Cold Storage Pvt. Ltd, reported in (2020)5 SCC-757, the instant case should have to be proceeded ex- parte against O.P No:2 and further as this Commission by its order, being No:5, dated 18.02.2022 decided to proceed with the case ex-parte against O.P No:2, and further as the O.P No:2 did not conform the order of this Commission and had not deposited the cost as aforesaid, the instant case be proceeded and decided ex-parte against O.P No:2.

      It is relevant to be mentioned here that it is the settled principle of law that the District Forum/ Commission has no power to set aside its own ex-parte order. Only the National Commission has been given the power by statute to vacate its own order. It has been decided by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rajeev Hitendra Pathak  Vs Achyut Kashinath Karekar, Reported in (2011) 9SCC- 541 that “ District Forums and the State Commissions have not been given any power to set aside ex-parte orders and the power of review and the powers which have not been expressly given by the statute cannot be exercised”. 

       Further, under section 40 of the C.P. Act, 2019, a provision has been made for review of the orders by the District Commission, by which power  has been given to the District Commission to review its order within a period of thirty days, if there is an error apparent on the face of the record only.   

      In the Written Version filed by the Opposite Party no.1, the Opposite Party No:1 denied all the material allegations of the Complaint petition and stated that the case is not maintainable in the eye of law.

      The Opposite Party no.1 denies all the allegations made by the Complainant as false, frivolous and concocted and submits that the story cooked up by the complainant as false and unbelievable.

C.C- 14 of 2021

      The Opposite Party denies the allegations holding it requiring strict proof to substantiate the allegation as labelled against the Opposite Party no.1.The Opposite Party no.1 further submits that it is the complainant has committed fraud and as such he is not entitled to relief as claimed by him and hence the case filed by the Complainant is liable to be dismissed with exemplary costs to the Opposite Parties. Further, the Opposite Party no 1 stated in the Written Version that the case of the complainant is not maintainable in the back drop of the settled principles of law and there is no deficiency of service caused by the O.P No:1 in any way .The O.P no.1 therefore, prayed for dismissal of the case.

      During hearing of the case, the Complainant adduced evidence and filed Written Examination- Chief on 26/04/2022 supported by an affidavit and further submitted documents by making Annexure.

      The O.P no.1 filed Questionnaires on 18/07/2022 against the Examination-in-Chief of the Complainant and the Complainant also made reply to those questionnaire filed by O.P no.1 on 10/08/2022.

      It is revealed from the case record that the O.P No.1 filed evidence on 22/08/2022. But the Complainant did not put any set of Questionnaire against the Evidence-in- Chief of the O.P no.1 and therefore the Evidence of the O.P no.1 was closed on 14/12/2022.

      At the time of hearing of argument only O.P No:1 was present despite given clear order to appear  and file B.N.A . Heard the argument of the case from O.P No:1 in absence of the Complainant on 26.04.2023.

      From the Complaint Petition, W/V of the O.P no.1, evidence of both the parties and other materials on record, the following points have been framed:-

Points to be decided:-

1. Is the Complainant a Consumer?
2. Is the case filed within the period of limitation as prescribed in law?
3. Has this District Commission ample power and jurisdiction to entertain and decide the case?

C.C- 14 of 2021

4. Are the Opposite Parties deficient in providing service towards the Complainant?
5. Are the Opposite Parties involved in the unfair trade practice?
6. Are the Opposite Parties guilty of misleading the Complainant?
7. Is the Complainant entitled to get any relief as prayed for?

D E C I S I O N W I T H R E A S O N S:

      All the points are taken together for the sake of brevity, avoidance of    repetition of facts, convenience for discussion and arriving at a just decision of the case.

      In order to unearth the point whether the present Complainant is a consumer or not, we have to scan the evidence of the complainant and other documents filed, from which it is detected that the Complainant is a saving account holder with the Opposite Party no.1. While the Opposite Party no.2 is a insurer having tied up with its corporate agent the Opposite Party no.1.The Complainant was approached by the Opposite Party no.1 agent viz Mr. Paul Lepcha for the sale of Policies (a) ) 0235377794, S.A- Rs.5,00,000/ for the year 2017-2018  and  (b) 0235377822, S.A- 10,00,000/ for the year 2017-2019 and the complainant purchased the said above two policies and paid premium of Rs. 2139/( Rupees Two Thousand One Hundred Thirty Nine only)  and  Rs.29,317/( Rupees Twenty Nine Thousand Three Hundred Seventeen Only), respectively both on  03.03.2017, total premium amount paid Rs. 31,456/( Rupees Thirty One Thousand Four Hundred Fifty Six Only) to the O.P No:2 through O.P No:1, therefore in our considered view that the Complainant is a Consumer within the meaning and definition given U/S-2( 7) of the C.P. Act, 2019.

      Now in order to ascertain the point of Limitation of time, we have again to scrutinize the evidence of the Complainant and other materials on record.

       It is seen from the evidence of the Complainant that he has purchased the above noted two polices from the O.P No:2 on 03.03.2017 for the

C.C- 14 of 2021

period of coverage as noted above. The Complainant went for a renal operation in Chennai and he claimed cashless benefit under the policy, which was denied by the O.P No:2  in the month of July 2019 ( specific date has not mentioned) and the Complainant has filed this case on 04.10.2021, i.e after the limitation period of time of 2 years from the accrual of the cause of action. But, as per the order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court passed in Suo-Motu W.P No:- 03 of 2020 (Civil) dated 23.03.2020 for Covid-19 pandemic and subsequent orders  due to surge of Covid-19 virus as passed in M.A- 665 of 2021 and M.A- 21 of 2022, arisen out of S.M.W.P No: 03 of 2020( Civil) , the period  was extended time to time by the Hon’ble Supreme Court the entire period from 15.03.2020 to 28.02.2022 was excluded for the purpose of calculating the period of limitation and further as per the order of the  Hon’ble N.C.D.R.C, being Office Order No:07 of 2022, dated 14.01.2022  it is specifically mentioned that in cases where the limitation would have expired during the period between 15.03.2020 till 28.02.2022, notwithstanding the actual balance period of limitation remaining, all persons shall have a limitation period of 90 days from 01.03.2022. In the event the actual balance period of limitation remaining, w.e.f 01.03.2022, is greater than 90 days, that longer period shall apply.

       Here, the instant case was filed on 04.10.2021, therefore considering the above discussion and keeping in mind the ratio of the above noted judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, we are of the view that the instant case was filed within the period of limitation.

       Now in order to ascertain whether this District Commission has ample power and jurisdiction to entertain, adjudicate and decide the case or not, we have to look at the evidence of the Complainant and other materials on record.

       It is seen from the cause title of the case that the complainant is a resident of  P.O & District:- Kalimpong and the O.P No:1 is also carrying his banking business at Kaimpong, having its branch at D.S. Gurung Road and

C.C- 14 of 2021

the O.P No:2 is also carrying his insurance business, having its head office at Mumbai.  It is relevant to be mentioned here that though the Darjeeling District has been bifurcated and a new district has been emerged as Kalimpong out of the territory of Darjeeling, but till date no separate District Commission has been set up at Kalimpong and the area of Kalimpong District is still within the territorial limit of this District Commission, Darjeeling and So, in view of Sec- 34(2)(b) of the C.P .Act, 2019 this District Commission has territorial jurisdiction to entertain and adjudicate the instant case.

      Further, it is seen from the case record that the complainant has initiated the case against the O.Ps and prayed for directions to be given upon the O.Ps to pay compensation to the tune of Rs. 55,00,000/ ( Rupees Fifty Five Lakh Only)  cumulatively in three different heads and the  complainant has paid premium amount of Rs. 2139/( Rupees Two Thousand One Hundred Thirty Nine only)  and  Rs.29,317/( Rupees Twenty Nine Thousand Three Hundred Seventeen Only), respectively both on  03.03.2017, total premium amount paid Rs. 31,456/( Rupees Thirty One Thousand Four Hundred Fifty Six Only) to the O.P No:2 through O.P No:1,

      In this respect we would like to mention the provision of Sec- 34(1) of the C.P.Act, 2019, wherein it has been enacted and reproduced as under:-

      Jurisdiction of District Commission:-

      Subject to the other provisions of this Act, the District Commission shall have jurisdiction to entertain complaints where the value of the goods or services paid as consideration does not exceed one crore rupees.

      On 30.12.2021 the Central Government notified Consumer Protection (Jurisdiction of the District Commission, The State Commission and the National Commission) Rules,2021 in order to revise the Pecuniary Jurisdiction of the District Commission, the State Commission and the National Commission and it has been mentioned therein that the District Commission shall have jurisdiction to entertain complaints where the value of the goods and services paid as consideration does not exceed Fifty Lakh Rupees (Rs. 50,00,000/-).

C.C- 14 of 2021

       Therefore, it is crystal clear that the upper pecuniary limit of the District Commission is Rs.50,00,000/( Rupees Fifty Lakh).

Further, it is very much relevant to cite one judgment of the Hon’ble National Commission titled as M/S Puneet knitwear Vs New India Assurance Company Ltd & Anr, Reported in 2020(3) C.P.R- 385( N.C), wherein it has been held by the Hon’ble National Commission that             “ When an insurance policy is taken by a person he pays a premium to the insurer for hiring or availing its services. It is the premium paid by the insured to the insurer and not the extent of the sum insured which constitutes the agreed consideration and therefore in my opinion, it is the premium paid to the insurer which when added to the compensation claimed in the complaint would determine the pecuniary jurisdiction of this Commission. The extent of the sum assured would have no bearing on determination of the pecuniary jurisdiction of a consumer forum”.

       Therefore, it is crystal clear that for the purpose of deciding pecuniary jurisdiction for an insurance claim, amount of claim plus premium paid will determine the same.

      Following the above noted judgment, if we calculate the pecuniary limit of this case, we see that the total amount paid by the Complainant as premium in two insurance policies is Rs.31,456/ and the total amount claimed by the Complainant as Compensation under three heads cumulatively is Rs.55,00,000/, and if both are added it comes to                Rs. 55,31,456/ ( Rupees Fifty Five Lakh Thirty One Thousand Four Hundred Fifty Six Only), which is above the maximum limit of rupees Fifty lakhs.

       Therefore, considering the above discussion and having due regard to the Statute and Ratio of the judgment passed by the Hon’ble National Commission as referred above, we are of the considered view that this District Commission lacks pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain, try, adjudicate and decide the case.

      Therefore, as this District Commission does not have pecuniary jurisdiction, on this score alone the instant case of the Complainant is liable to be dismissed.

C.C- 14 of 2021

       Now, as the case is not maintainable before this District Commission, we think that there is no need to make any comment or discuss on the rest points.  

       However, it is the liberty of the Complainant to file the case afresh before any Competent Court of law/ Forums, if not otherwise barred.

Hence,

It is Ordered that-

The Consumer Complaint, being No:- C.C- 14 of 2021 is dismissed on contest against the O.P No:1 and Ex- Parte against O.P No:2.

 No order as to costs.

 Let free copies of this order be given to the parties concerned as per C.P Rules and Regulations, 2020.  

 ....................................................

     Written, Typed & Signed by

 Smt. Bhawana Thakuri( Member).

       D.C.D.R.C, Darjeeling

                I Concurred.

....................................................

     ( Sri. Siddhartha Ganguli),

        President-in- Charge)

        D.C.D.R.C, Darjeeling.