Orissa

Rayagada

CC/429/2015

Lokanath Behera - Complainant(s)

Versus

Branch Manager LIC of India Sambalpur - Opp.Party(s)

Self

13 Jun 2018

ORDER

DISTRICT   CONSUMER  DISPUTES REDRESSAL    FORUM, RAYAGADA,

STATE:  ODISHA.

C.C. Case  No. 429 / 2015.                                           Date.    13     .     6  . 2018

P R E S E N T .

Dr. Aswini  Kumar Mohapatra,                       President.

Sri  Gadadhara Sahu,                                            Member.

Smt. Padmalaya  Mishra,                                     Member.

 

Sri Loknath Behera, S/O :   Late  Pondu Behera, Presently residing at Bakiti Street, Po:Gunupur,        Dist:Rayagada  (Odisha).                            …. Complainant.

Versus.

1.The Branch  Manager,  Life  Insurance Corporation of India, Sambalpur Division, Bargarh  Branch  office, Jeeve Jyoti, Near Super  Market, NH-6, District: Bargarh.

2.Smt. Janaki Behera, W/O:  Late Pondu Behera, AT: Georgegorh, At/Po: Paikomal, Dist:Bargarh.                                                                                                             .…..Opp.Parties

Counsel for the parties:                         

For the complainant: - Sri  D.B.M.Patnaik, and associates, Advocate, Gunupur.

For the O.P  No.1   :-. Sri   Sahadev Choudhury, Advocate, Rayagada.

For the  O.P. No.2:- Sri R.P.Padhy,  Advocate, Gunupur.

JUDGEMENT

          The  curx of the case is that  the above named complainant alleging deficiency in service  against  afore mentioned O.Ps for   non  settlement the policy  No. 591288349  of  Late   Pandu Behera in two equal shares in between the complainant and the O.P. No.2   for which  the complainant  sought compensation  inter alia  for redressal of the grievances raised by the complainant.

On being noticed  the learned counsel for the O.P. No.1 & 2  filed written version inter alia  challenged  the maintainability of the  petition before the forum. The averments made in the  petition are  all false, and O.Ps  deny   each and every allegation made in the petition. The O.Ps taking one  & other grounds in the written version   sought to dismiss the complaint as it is not maintainable  under the C.P. Act, 1986.  The O.P No.1  prays the forum to dismiss the complaint petition  for the best interest of justice.

The O.Ps appeared and defend the case.  Heard arguments from the  learned counsel for  the  O.Ps and from the complainant.    Perused the record, documents,  written version filed by the parties. 

This forum  examined the entire material on record  and given  a thoughtful consideration  to the  arguments  advanced  before us by  the  parties touching the points both on the facts  as well as on  law                                           

         FINDINGS.

            Undisputedly Late  Pandu Behera was working  as a ward attendant under Govt.  Ayurvedic Hospital, Paikamal of Bargarh District.  Late  Pandu Behera died on Dt. 5.8.2014 at Burla leaving behind the  son and daughters. Further there is no dispute  that Late Pandu Behera had a  insurance  LIC  policy   No. 591288349  and in the  said   policy the nomine was  Janaki Behera (wife) i.e. O.P. No.2 .

            The  O.P.No.1  in their written version  para No.  4  clearly  contended that  as there is valid nomination  exist against   policy No. 591288349   in favour of Smt. Janaki Behera wife of  Late Pandu Behera.  Now  for the O.P. No.1  to settle the claim particularly in  favour of the complainant is impossible until and unless a order  is received  from the competent authority of court of law.

            Further  The  O.P.No.1  in their written version  para No.  5  clearly  contended that  the legal heir certificate  submitted by the complainant goes to pay that Late Pandu Behera   died leaving behind wife  Janaki Behera, Son Loknath Behera, Daughters Boidei, Laxmi, Dalimbo and another  Son  Meenaketan Behera.

            The  O.P.No.2  in their written version  para No.  6  clearly  contended that  since Pandu Behera died on  Dt. 5.8.2014 as such the O.P.No.2  is  entitled to receive the assured amount as  a nominee and the  first  legal  heir as a legal married  wife of Late  Pondu Behera. 

              Again  the  O.P.No.2  in their written version  para No.  7  clearly  contended that  the complainant has no right  to receive the amount since during the life time of Pondu Behera the complainant was not looking after and  taking care of his  old age  father  and  living  outside  at a distance place atr Srikakulam District  with his   mother  Jema Behera  who  married  to another  person  namely Eswar Behera   in Srikakulam District as such he has  no right to claim over the matured  value of the insurance policy.

            It is revealed from the record that the present dispute having complicated issues which requires examine   & cross examination of evidence and documents in voluminous manner  could not be determined by this forum because  of the proceeding before the  Dist. Consumer Forum are summary in nature, that have to be adjudicated by the  Civil Court as thus the matter should be relegated to the Hon’ble Court having  jurisdiction to adjudicate.

On  perusal of the record this forum  observed  that   a Civil suit No. 30 of  2015 is   still  pending   at Court of Civil Judge Senior Divison, Gunupur  on the same cause of action.

For the better appreciation   this   forum  relied  these citations of the Hon’ble  National Commission  & State  Commission.

It is held and reported  in CPR 2015(1) page No. 228  where in the hon’ble  National Commission observed  “A matter  which is pending before Civil Court, should not be raised before Consumer Forum”. When  the matter is pending at  Civil Court on the same cause of action, this forum can not and will not entertain any claim  in respect of the identical subject matter in the present case.

           It is well settled  that the matter can not be decided  by Consumer Forum  wnen the civil suit is  pending  in  the civil court in same of cause action L.T. Coal A.J. AnandVrs.  The Manager, Indian Bank, Chandigarh and others 1991 CPJ  Page No. 157 Delhi  State C.D.R.Commission.

 

          The Hon’ble State C.D.R.Commission, Odisha, Cuttack  in Mrs. Jayasri Mishra VRs. SBI in which it is held that the same having been sub-judice  at the Civil  Court, It is not permissible to enter  in to the same issue by the Consumer  Forum. Held  1995-CLT –OSC-14 which is decided 5.9.1995.

 

          Section 2(1)©- Complaint- no complaint where the matter has been sub-judice at Civil  court, can not reagitated.. Held in M/S. Kishsangarh Marbles Pvt. Ltd. Vrs. Gujarat State Financial Corp. in 1991  CPJ 103 (NCDRC),New Delhi.

         

          Again  it is held and reported in CPJ 1991 (1) page No.78  where in the Hon’ble  National Commission observed   “As a matter  of policy and principle that where in the subject matter of a  complaint is sub-judice  before the  Civil Court,  a concurrent adjudication in respect of  the same  will not be conducted by the commission under the Act,  the objection  is not really  on the ground  of lack of jurisdiction  but one based on consideration of propriety and prudence keeping  in view  of   the  necessity for avoidance of conflicting  decisions and multiplicity  of proceeding” .

 

          This forum have  gone  through the documents submitted by the  O.P. No.2 (Bank) in respect of the case being taken up  by the Hon’ble  Civil Court,  Sr. Division,  Gunupur. Since the matter is sub-judice, it is beyond   our jurisdiction to adjudicate  upon the merits of the  complaint petition.  So the complaint petition is liable to be  dismissed.

          In the light of the aforesaid  judgements, it becomes clear that the  complaint petition is not maintainable before the  forum.

          As thus we  are   not  intend to  going into the merits of the matter and express   no opinion in respect  of the same for deciding the points raised by the complainant. 

                                                                                ORDER.

In   resultant  the complaint petition  stands  dismissed but without cost.

                Serve the copies of the  above order  to the parties free of cost.

Dictated  and corrected by me.        Pronounced on this        13^th.           day     of      June,       2018.

 

Member                             Member.                                                         President