STATE CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL COMMISSION

BIHAR, PATNA

Appeal No. 179 of 2022

Rajendra Kumar Agrawal, aged about 70 years, Son of Late Durga Prasad Khandelia, Resident of Village- MG Road, Police Station & District- Katihar

                                                                                                                                                … Complainant/Appellant

Versus

Branch Manager, LIC of India, Katihar, at Mangal Bazar, PO, PS & District- Katihar- 854105

                                                                                                                                          …. Opposite Parties/Respondents

Counsel for the Appellant: Adv. Ratnakar Ambastha & Adv. Rajendra Prasad Sah

Counsel for the Respondent: None

Before,

Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Kumar, President

Mr. Ram Prawesh Das, Member

Md. Shamim Akhtar, Member

Dated 08.08.2023

As per Sanjay Kumar, President.

O r d e r

1. Present appeal has been filed for setting aside the order dated 16.07.2019 passed in Miscellaneous Case no. 38 of 2004 (arising out of CC/50/2004) passed by Ld. District Consumer Forum, Katihar whereby and whereunder Miscellaneous case was dismissed for non-prosecution as well as order dated 01.09.2022 by which restoration petition for restoring the Miscellaneous case no. 38 of 2004 was dismissed by the Ld. District Consumer Forum, Katihar.
2. Complainant took a life insurance policy of Rs. 25,000/- and in terms of which first survival benefit of Rs. 6250/- was due on 28.10.1994 but was paid on 28.10.1999. The second survival benefit was to be paid on 28.10.2000 but the cheque for same was issued on 06.02.2003 in the name of wrong person which was returned and thereafter another cheque dated 09.05.2003 was issued without any interest as such same was also returned. On 26.03.2003 another cheque with interest was issued which was refused by the complainant and thereafter complainant filed a consumer complaint case before the District Consumer Forum, Katihar being Complaint case no. 50 of 2004 and same was allowed by order dated 05.06.2004 and LIC was directed to pay compensation of Rs. 10,000/- along with upto date interest on  second survival benefit to the complainant.
3. Complainant was paid the second survival benefit  amount of  Rs. 6,250/- with interest of Rs. 1,423/- which comes to Rs. 7,673/-.
4.  Aggrieved by order dated 05.06.2004 both parties filed appeal before the State Commission being Appeal no. 474 of 2004 filed by LIC for setting aside amount of compensation of Rs. 10,000/- and Appeal no. 629 of 2004 by the complainant for enhancement of compensation amount and State Commission dismissed the case of complainant and allowed the case of LIC by order dated 18.10.2005  and compensation amount of Rs. 10,000/- was set aside.
5. Complainant thereafter against the order dated 18.10.2005 filed revision before the National Commission being Revision Petition no. 275 of 2006 and revisional court by its order dated 25.08.2009 granted compensation of Rs. 5,000/- to the complainant to be paid within 6 weeks from the date of order failing which opposite party/LIC will be liable to pay interest @10% from the date of passing of the order by the District Forum till realization.
6. It was further ordered that while admitting the revision petition on 21.02.2006 the National Commission had directed opposite party/LIC to deposit Rs. 10,000/- with the District Forum giving liberty to the complainant to withdraw the same. In case the said amount has already been withdrawn by the complainant then same shall not be recovered. Otherwise, the opposite party /LIC would be at liberty to withdraw the amount deposited by it before the District Forum and pay the sum of Rs. 5,000/- as directed by the National Commission.
7. Complainant had filed Miscellaneous case no. 38 of 2004 for execution of the order passed in complaint case no. 50 of 2004. In compliance of order passed by the National Commission a cheque of Rs. 5,250/- was presented by counsel for the LIC before the executing court which was handed over to the the complainant on 04.10.2018 and accepted by him. Thereafter, both the parties left appearing before the executing court. Subsequently, on 24.02.2019 a petition was filed by the complainant that cheque was received by him under protest and he will be filing his protest but thereafter, no protest was filed and the case also remained unattended and by order dated 16.07.2019, the Miscellaneous case was closed.
8.  After more than three years complainant filed an application dated 026.08.2022 for revival of Miscellaneous case no. 38 of 2004 on the ground that Miscellaneous case no. 38 of 2004 was dismissed on 16.07.2019 as counsel for the complainant left doing pairvi and he had no information about it.
9. The application filed by complainant was dismissed as same was filed after more then three years when the miscellaneous case 38 of 2004 was closed after giving sufficient opportunity to both the parties and acceptance of cheque amount by the complainant in terms of order dated 25.08.2009 passed by the National Commission in Revision case no. 275 of 2006.
10. Having heard Ld. counsel for the appellant this commission finds that there is no provision for revival of Miscellaneous case which has been closed after the order passed by the revisional court has been complied and complainant has also accepted the amount and thereafter left the Miscellaneous case unattended and after more than three years have filed an application for revival of closed case.
11. This Commission does not find any error or infirmity in the order passed by the District Consumer Forum, Katihar in Miscellaneous case no. 38 of 2004. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed.

              (Md. Shamim Akhtar)                         (Ram Prawesh Das)                                       (Sanjay Kumar,J)

                      Member                                            Member                                                         President

Md. Fariduzzama