Haryana

StateCommission

A/527/2017

DALIP SINGH - Complainant(s)

Versus

BIRLA SUN LIFE INSURANCE CO. - Opp.Party(s)

NARENDER KAAJLA

10 Jul 2018

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                 

 

First Appeal No  :        527 of 2017

Date of Institution:        02.05.2017

Date of Decision :         10.07.2018

 

 

 

 

Dalip Sinigh son of Zile Singh, resident of Village Bhuthan Kalan, Tehsil and District Fatehabad.

                                      Appellant-Complainant

Versus

 

1.      Birla Sun Life Insurance, Registered Office, One India Bulles Center, Tower 1, 16^th Floor, Jupiter Mills Compound, 841, Senapati Bapat Marg, Elphinstone Road, Mumbai-400 013 through its Chairman-cum-Managing Director/ Managing Director

 

2.      Birla Sun Life Insurance Company Limited, branch office, First Floor, Canara Bank, G.T. Road,  Fatehabad through its Branch Manager.

                                      Respondents-Opposite Parties

 

 

CORAM:             Hon’ble Mr. Justice Nawab Singh, President.

                             Shri Balbir Singh, Judicial Member.

         

 

Present:               Shri Narender Kaajla, Advocate for the appellant.

                             Shri S.C. Thatai, Advocate for respondents.

 

                                                   O R D E R

 

NAWAB SINGH J. (ORAL)

 

Dalip Singh-complainant is in appeal against the order dated March 30^th, 2016 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Fatehabad (for short ‘the District Forum’) whereby complaint was dismissed on the ground that controversy could not be resolved in summary manner without recording elaborate evidence.

2.      Om Prakash- person insured, brother of complainant purchased insurance policy (Annexure -1) from Birla Sun Life Insurance Company Limited-opposite party (for short, ‘Insurance Company’).  The date of commencement was December 23^rd, 2014.  The Person Insured died on January 20^th, 2015, that is, after 28 days of the purchase of the insurance policy.   The complainant lodged claim with the Insurance Company. The Insurance Company repudiated the claim on the ground that the person insured replied in negative to the question numbered 12 (A) of the application for insurance. The person insured had taken insurance policies from various insurance companies within short span, which he did not disclose in the proposal form.  The person insured also submitted fake voter card.   

3.      The Consumer Disputes Redressal Fora and other Tribunals were created to lessen the burden of Civil Courts, by way of alternate Fora and also to provide expeditious relief to the deserving without undergoing the costly, intricate and dilatorily procedures.  The Consumer Disputes Redressal Fora cater to the needs of a special and specific category of litigants.  The jurisdiction and scope of the Civil Courts and such Fora have been well defined.  Simultaneously, summary procedure has to be adopted for decision by these Fora so that the consumers are not caught in the cobweb of long drawn battles of law and procedure besides, such Fora are presided by person who are or have been or are eligible to be District Judges.  In other words men of caliber having good knowledge of law, facts and procedure are to deal with consumer disputes.  They are not suppose to abdicate by taking refuge under the pretext that the matter involves complicated questions of facts and law.  It is their duty to decide all such questions by bringing into play their legal acumen, experience and knowledge of law and facts.   

4.      Hon’ble Supreme Court in Dr. J.J. MERCHANT & ORS. VERSUS SHRINATH CHATURVEDI III(2002) C.P.J. 8 (S.C.) held as under:-

“It is next contended that such complicated questions of facts cannot be decided in summary proceedings. In our view, this submission also requires to be rejected because under the Act, for summary or speedy trial, exhaustive procedure in conformity with the principles of natural justice is provided. Therefore, merely because it is mentioned that Commission or Forum is required to have summary trial would hardly be a ground for directing the consumer to approach the Civil Court. For trial to be just and reasonable drawn delayed procedure, giving ample opportunity to the litigant to harass the aggrieved other side, is not necessary. It should be kept in mind that Legislature has provided alternative, efficacious, simple, inexpensive and speedy remedy to the consumers and that should not be curtailed on such ground. It would also be totally wrong assumption that because summary trial is provided, justice cannot be done when some questions of facts are required to be dealt with or decided. The Act provides sufficient safeguards….”

5.      In CCI Chambers Co-op. Housing Society Ltd. Vs. Development Credit Bank Ltd., 2003 AIR SCW 5887, Hon’ble Supreme Court held that merely because recording of evidence required on some facts and law which would need to be investigated and determined, cannot be a ground for denial of trial of the complaint by the District Forum under this Act. 

6.      In view of law enunciated above, it will not be in the interest of law or justice for a Forum to abdicate its function and send the parties to a Civil Court merely because some questions involved can be answered only after taking evidence which will involve examination and cross-examination etc.   The approach exhibited by the District Forum in this case run counter to the very purpose of creating the District Fora. 

7.      For the reasons recorded supra, the appeal is accepted, impugned order is set aside and the case is remitted to the District Forum to decide the case on merits. 

8.      The parties are directed to appear before the District Forum on August 30^th, 2018.

9.      Copy of this order be sent to the District Forum.

 

 

Announced: 10.07.2018

(Balbir Singh) Judicial Member

(Nawab Singh) President

 

U.K