Dtd.28.10.2024                                            A/1153/2023

O R D E R

       BY Mr.K.B.SANGANNANAVAR : Pri.Dist & Session Judge (R) - JUDICIAL MEMBER.

1.    This is an appeal filed U/s.41 of CPA 2019 by OP/Appellant aggrieved by the order dtd.11.08.2022 passed in CC/148/2022 on the file of Dakshina Kannada District Commission. (Parties to the appeal henceforth are referred to their rank assigned to them by the District Commission).
2. The Commission examined grounds of appeal, impugned order, appeal papers and heard the learned counsel for Appellant. Now the point that arise for consideration of this Commission would be:

Whether the impugned order dtd.11.08.2022 passed in CC/148/2022 does call for an interference of this Commission for the grounds set out in the appeal memo?

3. The Complainant in his complaint has prayed to direct OP to refund the fund value as on the date when the premium fell due on 01.01.2020. Further he has sought to revive the LIC policy bearing no.17325878 issued on 07.01.2015 w.e.f. January 2020 and to pay compensation of Rs.2 lakhs for causing mental agony and Rs.25,000/- towards cost of litigation. The Complaint raised on 10.06.2022 came to be decided on 11.08.2022, within 59 days from the date of admission dtd.14.06.2022. OP is placed exparte. The office of OP is situated in Mumbai. The District Commission proceeded to allow the complaint in part and directed to revive the policy in question after receiving the premium due as per policy agreement and to pay sum of Rs.30,000/- as compensation, but facts remain found from complaint at para 3 itself that OP had transferred the fund value of Rs.6,16,873.01 to his bank account on 14.09.2020 was not at all considered by the District Commission. If according to District Commission, the policy in question has to be revived, Complainant is bound to return Rs.6,16,873.01 and also subject to payment of premium amount due to be payable from January 2020 and in such circumstances, learned counsel for OP/Appellant rightly submits that the District Commission  mislead by Complainant considering the premium term at  six years instead at 15 years.
4. Let us examine Sec.38(2)(a) provides “to refer a copy of the admitted complaint, within twenty-one days from the date of its admission to the opposite party mentioned in the complaint directing him to give his version of the case within a period of thirty days or such extended period not exceeding fifteen days as may be granted by it.” No doubt the District Commission decided within 56 days but facts remain OP is from a place situate far away from the District Commission and in such circumstances, although we have to appreciate swift speed decision complainant failed to disclose certain vital aspects of the matter and in such circumstances, deciding a case without allowing the OP to place its affidavit and documents to defend the case has to be held contrary to facts and law. The complainant in his complaint or the affidavit did not whisper about receipt of the fund value from OP.
5.   In the above such circumstances, in our view it would be just and proper to remand back the matter for fresh consideration. Hence, we proceed to allow the appeal. Consequently set aside the order dtd.11.08.2022 passed in CC/148/2022 on the file of Dakshina Kannada District Commission with a direction to readmit the complaint and allow OP to place affidavit evidence and documents and afford opportunity to rebut the case of the complainant recourse to other modes available under the laws. The parties are liberty to place additional evidence if any. The District Commission is directed to decide the complaint case keeping in mind the object of CPA 2019.
6. The parties are directed to appear before the District Commission on 25.11.2024 to receive further directions to avoid delay.
7. The amount in deposit is directed to be transferred to the District Commission for needful.
8. Notify copy of this Order to the District Commission and parties.

   Lady Member                                Judicial Member               

*NS*