By Justice T. Nandakumar Singh.

            These two Revision Petitions between the same parties having common question of fact and law are jointly taken up for disposal by a common judgment and order. These 2 (two) Revision Petitions, by the same petitioner, are challenging the orders of the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Imphal viz. (i) order dated 19.05.2018 passed in Misc. Case No. 5 of 2018 (Ref. Complaint Case No. 20 of 2016) and (ii) order dated 19.05.2018 passed in Misc Case No. 6 of 2018 (Ref.  Complaint Case No. 21 of 2016) for dismissing the Misc. Applications filed by the petitioner (Insurance Company) for determining the maintainability of the complaint case solely on the ground that the complicated question of fact cannot be decided in the complaint filed before the District Consumer Forum.

2.        The concise fact sufficient for deciding the present Revision Petitions is recapitulated. One Md. Ibungo opened 2 (two) Insurance policies with the Petitioner (Insurance Company) i.e. Reliance Life Insurance Company  viz. (i) Policy Number 51138178 namely “Reliance Endowment Plan (Regular)” with risk commending from 25.11.2013 and (ii) Policy Number 51326607 namely “Reliance Term Plan (Regular)” with risk commencing from 25.11.2013. The said Md. Ibungo is the cousin brother of the complainant (present respondent). The said Md. Ibungo expired on 04.01.2014 at 7.30 am due to Cardio Vascular Failure (Heart Attack) at his permanent resident at Khellakhong Heibong Makhong Mayai Leikai. On 10.02.2014, the respondent (complainant), as Nominee of the deceased Md. Ibungo, submitted required documents to the Insurance Company for claiming the insured amount of the said 2 (two) policies i.e. (i) Policy No. 51138178 and (ii) 51326607 and the said documents submitted to the petitioner (Insurance Company) were (i) original policy document, (ii) attested copy of the Death Certificate issued by the Municipal Authorities, (iii) Doctor’s Certificate, (iv) Claim Form issued by the HDFC Life Insurance, (v) Affidavit and (vi) Cancelled Cheque A/c No. 30467693647. On 26.05.2014, the petitioner (Insurance Company) informed the respondent (complainant) the finding of the investigation that the Insurance Policy Holder (Md. Ibungo) was imaginary person and the death certificate for Md. Ibungo is a fake one. On the failure on the part of the petitioner (Insurance Company) to give positive response to the request of the respondent (complainant) to release the insured amount of the said 2 (two) policies, the complainant approached the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Imphal by filing 2 (two) complaints against the petitioner (Insurance Company) i.e. (i) Complaint Case No. 20 of 2016, claiming compensation at the tune of Rs. 18 lakhs along with interest @ 18% per annum and (ii) Complaint Case No. 21 of 2016, claiming compensation at the tune of Rs. 7 lakhs along with interest @ 18% per annum for the said 2 (two) Insurance policies i.e. (i) Policy Number 51138178 and (ii) Policy Number 51326607 respectively.

3.        The petitioner filed the written statement alleging that the complaint, without any cause of action, is a frivolous one. Allegations made in the complaint are clearly fabricated, misconceived, motivated, unsubstantiated and unsustainable in law. Md. Ibungo did not exist and the complainant had produced false documents to open the said 2 (two) policies in the name of the imaginary death brother.  The Insurance policies had been obtained by fraud and misrepresentation. In the complaint, the petitioner filed the misc. application for determining the maintainability of the complaint case for the reason that the nominee is not entitled to the benefit of the forged insurance policy and also that even if the policy holder was indeed a real one District Forum would not be the appropriate Forum to entertain the present complaint inasmuch as District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum cannot decide the complex question of facts as the proceeding before the District Forum is only summary proceedings and it is not a full fledged trail. In the summary proceedings under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 the complex issue should not be entertained and it would be appropriate to relegate to the appropriate court i.e. Civil Court having jurisdiction.

4.        After admitting the present revision petitions, this Commission called the records of the Complaint Case No. 20 of 2016 and Complaint Case No. 21 of 2016 from the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Imphal. On receipt of the records this Commission perused the record and found that the petitioner did not file the documents in support of his case in the written statement before the District Forum, Imphal. But the petitioner filed some documents along with the Revision Petitions before this Commission. It may here be observed that the petitioner should have filed the documents in support of his case in the written statement before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Imphal.

5.        It is well settled law that this Commission invokes its revisional jurisdiction only when there was jurisdictional error in passing the orders by the District Forum. Revisional jurisdiction of this Commission is clearly provided under Section 17 (1)(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. For easy reference, Section 17 (1)(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 us quoted hereunder :

                       “(b)      to call for the records and pass appropriate orders in any consumer dispute which is pending before or has been decided by any District Forum within the State, where it appears to the State Commission that such District Forum has exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it by law, or has failed to exercise a jurisdiction so vested or has acted in exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity.”

6.        There is basic difference between Appellate and Revisional jurisdiction. Appellate jurisdiction confers right upon the aggrieved persons to complaint in the prescribed manner to a higher forum whereas, revisional power has a different object and purpose altogether as it confers the right and responsibility upon the higher forum to keep the subordinate tribunals/court within the limits of the law. Such revisional power have to be exercised sparingly, only as a discretion in order to prevent gross injustice and the same cannot not be claimed, as a matter of right by any party. [reference State of Gujarat and Another Vs. Gujarat Revenue Tribunal bar Association and Another (2012) 10 SCC 353].

7.        Now, the question to be decided in the present revision petitions is that whether the District Forum, Imphal has acted within its jurisdiction in passing the impugned judgment and orders and whether this Commission has to invoke its revisional jurisdiction/power in order to prevent gross injustice to the petitioner. It may here also be observed that the party cannot claim as the matter of right to invoke the revisonal jurisdiction and it is at the discretion of the revisional court to invoke its revisional jurisdiction in order to prevent gross injustice in a given case. By the impugned order dated 19.05.2018 passed in Misc. Case No. 5 of 2018 and order dated 19.05.2018 passed in Misc. Case No. 6 of 2018, the learned District Forum, Imphal did not curtail the right of the petitioner (Insurance Company) to prove his pleaded case by producing documents in the said 2 (two) complaint cases i.e. Complaint Case No. 20 of 2016 and Complaint Case No. 21 of 2016. Therefore, the right of the petitioner (Insurance Company) to prove his pleaded case that Md. Ibungo is an imaginary person and documents produced by the complainant in the said 2 (two) complaints are forged and concocted one is not denied by the learned District Forum, Imphal. However, by the impugned orders, learned District Forum, Imphal did not entertain the Misc. application filed by the petitioner for determining the maintainability of the complaint case as preliminary issue on the ground that the stage of the complaint case was at the very advance stage and maintainability issue should have been raised at the very early stage of the complaint case.

8.        Ms. Vidhyalaxmi, learned counsel for the petitioner by relying on the decision of the Apex Court (2 Judges) in Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Munimahesh Patel passed on 12.09.2006 contended that the District Forum should not entertain the complaint involving complex factual matrix as the nature of the proceeding before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum is essentially summary in nature and as such the complaint case should be examined by an appropriate Court of law not by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum. On perusal of the decision of the Apex Court (2 Judges) in its judgment dated 12.09.2006 in Oriental Insurance Company’s case (supra), it is clear that Hon’ble Supreme Court (2 Judges) did not discuss the ratio of the judgment of the larger Bench i.e. 3 (three) Judges in Dr. J.J. Merchant and Ors vs. Shrinath Chaturvedi (2002) 6 SCC 635. It is fairly settled law that if there are two different judgments of the different Bench of the Apex Court in a similar issue, the ratio laid down by the larger bench should be followed. The Apex Court (3 Judges) in Dr. J.J. Merchant’s case (supra) clearly held that the Commissions are competent to decide the complicated issues of law or facts.  Hence, it would not be proper to hold that cases where negligence of experts is alleged, consumers should be directed to approach the civil court.  Para 11 and 12 of the SCC in Dr. J.J. Merchant’s case (supra) read as follows :

            “11.        Further, under the Act the National Commission is required to be headed by a retired Judge of this Court and the State Commission is required to be headed by a retired High Court Judge. They are competent to decide complicated issues of law or facts. Hence, it would not be proper to hold that in cases where negligence of experts is alleged, consumers should be directed to approach the civil court.

12.          It was next contended that such complicated questions of facts cannot be decided in summary proceedings. In our view, this submission also requires to be rejected because under the Act, for summary or speedy trial, exhaustive procedure in conformity with the principles of natural justice is provided. Therefore, merely because it is mentioned that the Commission or Forum is required to have summary trail would hardly be a ground for directing the consumer to approach the civil court. For the trial to be just and reasonable, long-drawn delayed procedure, giving ample opportunity to the litigant to harass the aggrieved other side, is not necessary. It should be kept in mind that the legislature has provided alternative, efficacious, simple, inexpensive and speedy remedy to the consumer and that should not be curtailed on such ground. It would also be a totally wrong assumption that because summary trail is provided, justice cannot be done when some questions of facts are required to be dealt with or decided…….”

9.        For the foregoing reasons this Commission is of the considered view that there is not jurisdictional errors in passing the impugned orders. Accordingly, the 2 (two) revision petitions are devoid of merit. Hence, the two revision petitions are dismissed. It is made clear that this Commission is not making any observation regarding the merit of the complaint case and the observation made by this Commission in this common judgment and order shall not stand in the way of deciding the complaint case by the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Imphal in merit.

10.      Send down the record.