Father of the petitioner died in 2006 due to food poisoning.  The insurance claim arising from his death was paid to the mother of the deceased, i.e., the grandmother of the petitioner.  According to the petitioner, the claim was paid to her grandmother ignoring the claim of the wife of the deceased and the minor daughter, i.e., the complainant/petitioner.  Subsequently, mother of the petitioner also died due to electrocution.  Petitioner, being minor, filed the complaint through maternal grandfather that the opposite party, in connivance with her grandmother, had paid the entire claim amount to her grandmother.  Petitioner filed the complaint seeking compensation to the tune of Rs.4 lakh and costs of Rs.11,000/-.

District Forum dismissed the complaint by holding that disputed questions of fact, which would require elaborate evidence, could not be decided by consumer fora; that consumer fora have to decide the case in a summary manner and the petitioner was advised to approach the civil court for redressal of her grievances.

Not satisfied with the order passed by the District Forum, the petitioner filed an appeal, which has been dismissed by the State Commission.  The State Commission, while endorsing the finding recorded by the District Forum advising the petitioner to approach the civil court for redressal of her grievances, has also mentioned the fact that a Civil Suit filed by the respondent against the petitioner’s grandmother is already pending before the civil court, which shows that the dispute has already been carried to the civil court.

I agree with the view taken by the fora below.  The case involves disputed questions of fact which would require the taking of elaborate evidence.  As the consumer fora are required to decide the cases in a summary manner, questions involved in the present case cannot be decided by the consumer fora.  Petitioner has rightly been advised by the fora below to seek redressal of her grievances from the civil court.  Dismissed.