1.       This revision petition has been filed under section 21(b) of the Act 1986 in challenge to the Order dated 24.07.2020 of the State Commission in appeal no. 260 of 2020 arising out of the Order dated 17.07.2017 of the District Commission in complaint no. 197 of 2017.

2.       Repeatedly called out. 

No one appears.

3.       We have perused the record including inter alia the Order dated 17.07.2017 of the District Commission, the impugned Order dated 24.07.2020 of the State Commission and the petition.

4.       Relevant facts in brief are that the complainant’s father (since deceased) had purchased a tractor after availing finance (loan) from the opposite party financial institution (the petitioner herein). While sanctioning the loan the financial institution imposed a requirement that the complainant’s father also takes an insurance policy. A premium of Rs. 4550/- was deducted on 22.11.2013 from his loan account by the financial institution but the policy document or the terms and conditions of the insurance were not provided. He expired on 19.08.2016. The complainant’s requests to make available the insurance policy & its terms and conditions and the insured amount were ignored by the financial institution.

The complainant filed a complaint with the District Commission on 17.04.2017. Despite service of notice the financial institution did not present itself before the District Commission and neither did it file its version in response to the complaint. The District Commission however duly assessed the evidence furnished by the complainant and inter alia determined that premium of Rs. 4550/- had in fact been deducted from the loan account of his father. It accordingly directed the financial institution to provide the reliefs to the extent of the insured amount with simple interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of the filing of the compliant i.e. 17.04.2017 along with Rs. 1,000/- as cost of litigation and Rs. 1,000/- as compensation.

The financial institution appealed before the State Commission. The State Commission vide its impugned Order dated 24.07.2020 dismissed appeal at the admission stage itself.

5.       We do not find any glaring or catching infirmity in the impugned Order. As the counsel for the petitioner has not appeared we have not entered into the last details of the merits in the case. But what we certainly do not miss to observe from the record is that it being manifestly clear that premium of Rs. 4550/- was deducted by the financial institution from the loan account of the complainant’s father the District Commission has but directed the financial institution to provide the reliefs to the extent of the insured amount i.e. to honour the coverage for which the premium was deducted. The State Commission has concurred. On the face of it there appears no jurisdictional error or material irregularity in the impugned Order, nor does it appear that any miscarriage of justice has been occasioned.

6.       We also note that the subject loan was taken in 2013 when the premium for the insurance was also deducted, the insurance policy or its terms and conditions were not provided, the complainant’s father died in 2016, no action towards paying / getting paid the insured amount was taken, and the matter has been under litigation from 2017 onwards till 2022.

7.       In the above backdrop we have no hesitation in dismissing the revision petition in default in the absence of the petitioner financial institution today.

8.       The revision petition no. 992 of 2020 stands dismissed in default for lack of prosecution.

The award sustained by the State Commission vide its Order dated 24.07.2020 shall be forthwith complied with, failing which the District Commission shall undertake execution, for ‘enforcement’ and for ‘penalty’, as per the law.   

9.       The Registry is requested to send a copy each of this Order to all parties in the petition and to their learned counsel immediately. The stenographer is requested to upload this Order on the website of this Commission immediately.