Madhya Pradesh

StateCommission

A/14/884

ANSHUL SAXENA - Complainant(s)

Versus

LIC - Opp.Party(s)

28 Mar 2022

ORDER

M. P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BHOPAL

PLOT NO.76, ARERA HILLS, BHOPAL

                              

                                    FIRST APPEAL NO. 884 OF 2014

(Arising out of order dated 25.04.2014 passed in C.C.No.87/2013 by the District Commission, Datia)

 

ANSHUL SAXENA.                                                                                          …          APPELLANT

 

Versus

                 

BRANCH MANAGER, LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION

OF INDIA & ANOTHER.                                                                                  …         RESPONDENTS.

 

BEFORE:

 

                  HON’BLE DR. (MRS) MONIKA MALIK    :      PRESIDING MEMBER

                  HON’BLE SHRI S. S. BANSAL                :      MEMBER

 

                                      O R D E R

28.03.2022

 

          Shri Lalit Gupta, learned counsel for the appellant.

            Ms. Chitra Sharma, learned counsel for the respondent no.1.

            Ms. Smita Sharma, leaned counsel for the respondent no.2.

           

 

As per Dr. Monika Malik :            

                         This appeal filed by the appellant/complainant is directed against the order dated 25.04.2014 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Datia (For short ‘District Commission) in C.C.No.87/2013, whereby the complaint filed by the complainant/appellant is dismissed directing the complainant to approach the appropriate court  for redressal of his grievance.

2.                The complainant had filed a complaint before the District Commission alleging deficiency in service on part of opposite party for not giving the insurance policy, as assured, despite repeated requests.  Later on a  policy was given but with different benefits, which was not sought by

-2-

the complainant. The complainant therefore filed a complaint before the District Commission, seeking refund of premium deposited with interest @ 12% p.a., with compensation and costs.

3.                The opposite party resisted the complaint on the ground that the complainant had obtained the insurance policy in his full satisfaction and has wrongly stated that he has received the policy on 30.11.2012 whereas he had deposited premium for the March-2012 and March-2013. The dispute is basically between the complainant and the agent regarding commission.  Therefore, the complaint be dismissed with costs.

4.                The District Commission dismissed the complaint directing the complainant to approach the appropriate Court on the ground that the matter involved complicated questions and hence cannot be decided in summary proceedings by the District Commission.  Hence this appeal.

5.                Heard. Perused the record.

6.                Learned counsel for the appellant argued that the District Commission erroneously dismissed the complaint on the ground that the matter cannot be decided by the District Commission, on the basis that it involved complicated questions.  He argued that the matter can very well be decided by the District Commission, in summary proceedings, as per provisions of the Consumer Protection Act.  He therefore argued that the impugned order be set-aside and this appeal be allowed.

-3-

7.                Learned counsel for the respondents supported the impugned order and submitted that the District Commission has rightly directed the complainant to approach the appropriate Forum for redressal of his grievance.

8.                After hearing learned counsel for parties and on careful perusal of the impugned order and the record, we find that the District Commission has though discussed the matter in details, but however, subsequently it is held that the matter cannot be decided by the District Commission and directed the complainant to approach the appropriate Court.

9.                In our considered view, the District Commission ought to have commented on merits of the matter by specifically restricting to the issue of entitlement of relief to the complainant by considering all the aspects involved in the case, on the basis of evidence available in the record of the District Commission, rather then relegating the matter to the Civil Court.  The District Commission could have directed the parties to file additional evidence, if the evidence available in record was found to be inadequate. The District Commission ought to have made an observation on the specific issue, regarding which the complaint was filed.

10.              In view of the aforesaid, the impugned order is set-aside and the case is remanded back the case to the District Commission for deciding it afresh on merits, in accordance with law.

-4-

11.              Parties are directed to appear before the District Commission on 13.05.2022.

12.              Record of the District Commission be sent at the earliest.

13.              Parties are at liberty to adduce additional evidence along with affidavits, as and when directed by the District Commission, within the time specified for the same.

14.              The District Commission is directed to proceed in the matter in accordance with law.

15.              Needless to mention that the observations made hereinabove shall not come in way of the District Commission, while passing an order.

16.              With the observations and directions as aforesaid, this appeal is disposed of with no order as to costs.

 

                 (Dr. Monika Malik)                           (S. S. Bansal)             

                  Presiding Member                               Member