Sri Subhra Sankar Bhatta, Judicial Member

This Appeal is directed at the behest of the Appellant/Opposite Party challenging the order dated 28.06.2018 passed by the Hon’ble DCDRC, Kolkata—700001, (North) West Bengal in Complaint Case No. 291/2017 wherein and whereby the Ld. DCDRC was pleased to pass the following order:

“That the CC. No. 291/2017 is allowed on contest with cost against the O.Ps. The O.Ps are jointly and/or severally directed to pay the sum of Rs. 2,59,260/- along with comepensation of Rs. 20,000/- and litigation cost of Rs. 5,000/- within 30 days from the date of communication of this order, i.d. and interest @ 8% p.a. shall accrue over the entire sum due to the credit of the complainant till full realization.”

Case of the Appellant/Opposite Party in a nutshell is that the present Appellant MAX LIFE INSURANCE Company Ltd, an Indian insurance company registered under Section 3 of the Insurance Act, 1938 having its office at 3^rd, 11^th and 12^th floor, DLF square Jacaranda Marg, DLF city phase II Gurgaon, Haryana—122002 has preferred the present appeal through Mr. Akash Singh presently working as Manager-legal challenging the impunged judgment dated 28.06.2018 on several grounds. That the Hon’ble DCDRC arbitrarily rejected the stand taken by the appellant and erroneously held that the Insurance company has paid lesser amounts tantamount to deficiency in service on the part of the appellant company. According to the appellant payment of claim has been duly paid as per the terms and conditions of the subject policy and that the claim of the respondent as highlighted is totally vague and incorrect. That the impugned order dated 28.06.2018 suffers from wrong appreciation of evidence; that the impugned order passed by the learned Commission is not sustainable in law or facts and that there is neither any deficiency in service nor any unfair trade practice on the part of the appellant insurance company; That the learned Commission did not follow the principle of natural justice while passing the impugned order resulting gross mis-carriage of justice. On all such grounds the appellant has prayed for allowing the present appeal after setting aside the impugned order dated 20.06.2018 passed by the learned DCDRC Kolkata—700001, (North) West Bengal.

On the other hand, the case of the Respondent/Complainant as revealed from the contention of the complaint is that one Sanjay Bindra was a life insurance policy holder under the appellants insurance company ltd. vide policy no. 101837888 having a semiannual premium of Rs. 3497/- for whole life plan and the said policy commenced from 30.09.2001. Said policy holder appointed a nominee in the said policy. Subsequently, the policy holder died on 09.05.2017 at the age of 55 years. As per terms and conditions of the said policy in case of death of the policy holder the amount shall be paid to the beneficiary. The Respondent/Complainant accordingly claimed an amount of Rs.5,53,548/- plus annual bonus as death benefit of the policy holder due to his demise. The Appellant/Opposite party paid an amount of Rs.2,70,519.58 against the claim of the complainant but they did not pay the balance amount. Under such circumstances the complainant filed the complaint case praying for balance amount of Rs. 2,83,039/- plus compensation of Rs. 2,00,000/- and litigation cost of Rs. 50,000/- against the appellant company.

On the basis of the above averments the following points are to be adjudged in this appeal:

POINTS FOR DETERMINATION

1. Whether the impugned order dated 28.06.2018 is legal, valid and can be sustained in the eye of law?
2. Whether the impugned order is liable to be set aside.

DECISION WITH REASONS

During the course of argument the Ld. Counsel appearing for the appellant has candidly admitted that the appellant has already paid the full decretal amount of Rs. 2,88,247.43P to the Respondent/Complainant complying the execution application dated 31.08.2018 and as a consequence of which the said execution case was disposed of by order dated 16.01.2019. In support of such a claim the Ld. Counsel has also drawn our attention to the cheque (Xerox copy) dated 04.12.2018 issued in favour of the complainant. He has tried to impress upon this Commission that the said amount was paid under compelling circumstances as the NBW was not recalled and the leaned Commission had taken harsh steps against the appellant company. He has boldly submitted that finding no other alternative the appellant company paid the full decretal amount in favour of the complainant. According to the Ld. Counsel this appeal has sufficient merits as the Hon’ble District Commission erroneously passed the order dated 16.01.2019 in EA/147/2018. It is also argued that the order passed in execution application on 16.01.2019 is misconceived and baseless. Said order was passed by the Ld. District Commission knowing full well about the pendency of appeal against the impugned order passed in the complaint case. It is further argued that the Ld. District Commission did not quash or recall the NBW issued in the execution case and compelled the appellant company to pay the decretal amount. Ld. Counsel has also argued that the matter in dispute has not yet been settled and as such this appeal has very much merit. He has prayed for allowing the present appeal after setting aside the impugned order passed by the Ld. District Commission on 28.06.2018.

To refute the above submission Ld. Counsel appearing for the Respondent/Complainant has categorically submitted that the present appeal is not maintainable in the eye of law as the entire decretal amount has already been received by the complainant in the execution case and the execution case was duly disposed of on full satisfaction. The execution application was disposed of by the Ld. Commission upon hearing both sides. According to the Ld. Counsel the present appeal has no merit and cannot be entertained. He has prayed for outright dismissal of the present appeal with compensatory costs.

Admittedly, the appellant company has paid the full decretal amount of Rs. 2,88,247.43 p to the Respondent/Complainant in EA/147/2018 on 16.01.2019 by issuing Cheque being No. 944215 dated 04.12.2018 drawn on Axis Bank Ltd. Gurgaon complying the judgment dated 28.06.2018 passed by the Ld. DCDRC Unit—I in CC/291 of 2017. It is also an admitted fact that the Ld. Counsel for the Respondent/Complainant issued an acknowledgement receipt in favour of appellant company to that effect. Thus it is apparent from the documents available on record that the appellant company has paid the entire decretal amount to the Respondent/Complainant towards the full and final satisfaction of the case and the Ld. District Commission was pleased to pass the order of “FULL SATISFACTION” upon hearing both sides in the execution case. In our considered view the allegations and grievances as raised by the Ld. Counsel of Appellant have no legs to stand upon and the said allegations cannot be and should not be taken into consideration at this juncture on any score. It is crystal clear from the submission of both sides that the execution case was disposed of upon hearing both sides and the appellant raised no objection at that time. Thus being the position it can be safely concluded that the present appeal of the appellant has no merit and the Ld. District Commission was absolutely correct in arriving at the conclusion and passed the impugned order on 28.06.2018 in C.C. No. 291/2017. Considering all aspects from all angles and keeping in mind the position of law we are of the opinion that the appellant is totally estopped from raising the question of validity or illegality of the payment made in the execution proceeding. Practically, the Appellant paid the entire decretal amount complying the order of the Ld. District Commission. In the circumstances we have no other option left but to dismiss the present appeal with costs. Both the points are thus disposed of.

Hence,

Ordered

That the present appeal being No. A/964/2018 be and the same dismissed on contest with cost of Rs. 5,000/- payable by the appellant to the Respondent/Complainant within 30 days from the date of passing the order i.d. the Respondent/Complainant is at liberty to realize the same in accordance with law.

Thus, the present Appeal stands disposed of.