(Delivered on 28/04/2022)

PER SHRI A. Z. KHWAJA, HON’BLE JUDICIAL  MEMBER.

1.         Petitioner Nos. 1&2 Life Insurance Corporation of India   have  preferred  the present  Revision Petition under Section 47-1B of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 feeling aggrieved by the order dated 08/07/2020 passed by the learned District Consumer  Commission, Nagpur in Consumer Complaint No. 354/2019 whereby the  interim application filed by the  complainant /respondent – Mr. Durgaprasad Madanlal Sarda  for grant of  monthly pension  of Rs. 5545/-  under Jeevan Suraksha  Pension  Plan  Policy  came to be allowed.

2.         Short facts leading to  filing of  the Revision Petition may be stated  as under,

            Complainant Mr. Durgaprasad Sarda claims to be a resident of Raj Nagar, Nagpur.  The complainant had availed of one Jeevan Suraksha Policy bearing No. 971046341, Plan No. 122 which entitled  petitioner  to  the monthly pension of Rs. 5545/- on 31/03/2020. The complainant  has alleged that  he had taken  the policy  on 31/03/2000  and since then he was  paying  necessary  premiums  continuously  and  the policy   for monthly  pension  of Rs. 5545/- and   matured  on 28/02/2019.  The O.Ps.  have not disputed  that  the complainant  was the Policy  Holder but the O.P. No. 1 refused  to pay the sum of Rs. 5545/- on the  sole ground  that the amount of Rs. 5545/- was wrongly  printed  on the policy  of the complainant  and same was a  typographical  error. The O.P. has taken a plea that in fact the complainant was only entitled for the sum of Rs. 2876/- as per the calculation but there was typing mistake. The complainant being  aggrieved by  this  stand taken by the O.P.- Life Insurance Corporation of India found that  there was a deficiency  in service  on the part of the O.P. - Life Insurance Corporation of India and so  the  complainant  filed  the Consumer Complaint  under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.  During the pendency of the complaint the present  complainant had filed the interim application  for grant of monthly pension  of Rs. 5545/- from March-2019 as  this  policy  had  matured. After hearing the learned advocate for the respondent /complainant the learned District Consumer Commission, Nagpur passed an interim order on 08/07/2020 directing the O.P.Nos. 1&2 to pay a sum of Rs. 5545/- from March -2019 onwards.  Aggrieved by this  interim  order dated 08/07/2020  passed by the learned District Consumer Commission, Nagpur the present  petitioner  has come up in  present revision petition.

3.         After filing of the revision petition the learned advocate for the petitioner was heard by way of online mode and notice was issued to the respondent. The respondent  has now appeared  and filed  written notes of argument for final hearing.  

4.         We have heard Mr. Ghagarkar, learned advocate appearing for the petitioners and Mr. Karamchandani , learned advocate  appearing for the respondent /complainant.

5.         At the outset, Mr. Ghagarkar, the learned advocate for the petitioners has made two fold submissions. Firstly  it is submitted  by the learned  advocate for the petitioners  that the learned District Consumer Commission, Nagpur had  committed an error by passing  an interim order dated 08/07/2020 which amounted  to  final order in the complaint  as entire  relief  sought by the  respondent /complainant  had been granted  by the learned District Consumer Commission, Nagpur. Secondly, it is vehemently submitted by the learned advocate for the petitioners that no  proper opportunity was granted to the respondent to file its reply and to defend  its case.  It is submitted by the learned advocate for the petitioner that after filing of the Consumer Complaint the present petitioner had filed their written version and the case was fixed for filing written notes of argument  by both the parties on 12/06/2020 during the  period of Covid-19 Pandemic.  Meanwhile the complainant moved an application for taking the case on board  and also filed  an application  for grant  of interim relief. According to the petitioners the copy of notice  dated 02/07/2020 was received  by e-mail and  matter was fixed for hearing on  same day i.e.  07/07/2020. Mr. Ghagarkar, learned advocate for the petitioners  has submitted that  it was nowhere mentioned  in the notice  dated 02/07/2020 that hearing would take place  on 07/07/2020 and  date 07/07/2020 was in fact fixed  for filing reply. The learned advocate for the petitioners has submitted that the officer of Life Insurance Corporation of India  appeared before the learned District Consumer Commission, Nagpur and prayed  for time to bring their counsel but  the request was not considered  and matter was heard in the absence of the counsel  for the O.Ps./petitioners. Mr. Karamchandani, learned advocate for the respondent/ complainant  has strongly opposed this contention  and has submitted that  though  the  matter was fixed  on 07/07/2020, the officers of the O.Ps./petitioners  including  Law Officer were present  and so the  contention of the learned advocate for the petitioners that  no opportunity  was granted  by  devoid of any substance.  Mr. Ghagarkar, learned advocate for the petitioners has contended that in the absence of the counsel proper hearing was not granted to the petitioners/O.Ps. before passing  the  impugned  order dated 08/07/2020.

6.         Secondly,  it is submitted by  Mr. Ghagarkar, learned advocate for the petitioners  that  the interim  order  was passed by the learned District Consumer Commission, Nagpur  amounted to final order  and by this  order final relief  had came to be granted to the complainant which could  only  be granted after hearing of the  complaint on merits. On this aspect   Mr. Ghagarkar, learned advocate for the petitioners has heavily relied upon a series of judgments and we have carefully gone through the same. We have also carefully gone through the documents filed on record including the copy of policy documents. Bare perusal of this document placed on record shows that the complainant had taken a policy on 31/03/2000 regarding grant of monthly pension on maturity.  It also shows that the complainant  had paid  premium of Rs. 5,000/- continuously  for the period  of 20 years  to become  entitled  for amount of pension  of Rs. 5545/- and  therefore  had filed  the consumer complaint  alleging deficiency  in service   for non  grant of monthly pension  of Rs. 5545/- which is now  under challenged. It is thus  apparent  that  the relief sought in  the application by the complainant  was also main relief  claimed in the Consumer  Complaint.

7.         At this stage it would be necessary to deal with the submissions made by Mr. Karmchandani, learned advocate for the respondent /complainant who has challenged the tenability of the revision petition itself on the ground that the same is not maintainable.  Mr. Karmchandani, learned advocate for the respondent /complainant has submitted that the present revision petition was not  tenable in law against the impugned order as  remedy was available to the petitioner  to file appeal of  the Consumer Protection Act. According  to learned advocate for the respondent /complainant  the  revision  was  nothing   but  the  abuse  of law  when the remedy  to file  appeal  under section 47-1B of the Act was available On this aspect the learned advocate for the respondent/complainant  has relied  upon  the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India  in the case of  Hindusthan Petroleum vs. Dilbahar Singh, reported in AIR 2014 SC 3708 .

8.         We have carefully gone through the landmark judgment delivered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court on which reliance is placed. In the case of Hindusthan Petroleum vs. Dilbahar Singh  cited supra the Hon’ble  Supreme Court has elaborately  dealt with  all the previous  judgments and has brought out  the distinction  between  the Appellate  jurisdiction and Revisional jurisdiction. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has pointed out that the appellate jurisdiction involves re hearing  on the  facts and  law. On  the other hand the Revisional  jurisdiction  is  part  of the  appellate  jurisdiction  but  cannot  be  equated  with  that of the full fledged appeal. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed that Revision is not continuation of suit of the original proceedings. It is not  necessary for us to deal with  the entire  discussion  which is summed up  in para  25  to 30 in the aforesaid said  judgment  but it is sufficient   to mention  that the power of  revision are  exercise to correct any order which is passed without  jurisdiction  or   in excess of  jurisdiction   whereas the appeal   is factually  a  rehearing on the facts and  law and also  involves  fresh appreciation  of the  evidence  by  the Appellate Authority.

9.         Here in the present case  before us  the petitioners  have challenged  the interim  order passed  under  Section 13(3B) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 which is passed  during  the pendency  of the complaint. It is pertinent  to note that  the present  complaint  is already  fixed  and is ripe for final hearing  wherein  the written notes of argument  are also filed.  In view of these facts and contention of Mr. Karamchandani, learned advocate for the respondent /complainant that the revision petition is not maintainable as remedy of appeal is provided, cannot be accepted.

10.       Coming now back to the contention advanced by Mr. Ghagarkar, learned advocate for the petitioners, it is submitted by him that  in case interim  order is implemented  the same  will amount  to final  order and is also  amounting  to decide the  Consumer Complaint  on merits which is not  permissible  in law.  On this aspect he has relied upon one judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Zenit Mataplast P. Ltd. Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors. reported in MANU/SC/1626/2009  and  one  judgment  of Delhi High Court in the case of Shri P. Subba Rao and Ors. Vs. Andhra Association decided by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court on 28 March, 2008.  In the case of Zenit Mataplast P. Ltd. Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.(cited supra) the Hon’ble  Supreme Court granted  temporary  injunction   and it was observed  that  the interim relief  should be granted by considering all aspects   and   circumstance as it amounted  to granting the  Final relief itself.  On the basis of this judgment it is submitted by the learned advocate  that the consumer complaint is yet to be adjudicated and final hearing is yet to take place.  According to  the learned advocate for the petitioners  the  amount  printed  on  the policy issued to the respondent  of Rs. 5545/- was only a typographical  error  and in fact the complainant was  entitled  to  the sum of Rs. 2876/- and this aspect can be  adjudicated  only on merits. Further  it is also submitted  that no proper opportunity  was  also granted to the petitioners to defend  its case but  learned advocate for the respondent  has rebutted  this contention  and  submitted that  though the counsel  was not  present  but Law Officer of the Life Insurance Corporation of India  was present  and so there was no breach  of principle  of natural justice. We also find  on the basis  of the material  on record  that  in the  present case  the petitioners  have already filed  written  version  on record and complaint was fixed  for filing  of  written notes of argument .  In our view no useful purpose will be served by directing the application to be decided afresh and complaint can now be decided on merits. As such the impugned order dated 08/07/2020 will have to be set aside and the learned District Consumer Commission, Nagpur can be  directed to decide the Complaint of the respondent on merits as early as possible. In the light of the aforesaid discussion we pass the following order.

ORDER

i.          Revision petition is hereby partly allowed with costs quantified  to Rs. 25,000/- to be paid  by the Revision Petitioner  to respondent  within  two weeks  from the  date of  receipt of the  order and impugned order dated 08/07/2020 passed by the learned District Consumer Commission, Nagpur is set aside and matter  is remanded back.

ii.          The learned District Consumer Commission, Nagpur is directed to decide the Consumer Complaint on merits as expeditiously as possible.  

iii.         Copy of order be furnished to both the parties, free of cost.