ORDER
(Passed on 21.12.2022)
Perused review petition filed by original opposite party no. 1- Oriental insurance company limited to set aside the order dated 15th September 2022 passed in CC/23/2022.
2. Complainant Shrimati Shyamkalabai W/o Khemraj Bhoyer has also filed an execution application bearing no. 104 of 2022 filed on 29th November 2022 and kept for verification and admission. In this EA complainant has put her thumb impression on verification (satyapan).
3. Heard ld. Counsel for opposite party No.1 has brought to our notice that insurance claim amount has been already paid through NEFT on 2nd November 2021 i.e. 2 months prior to filing of consumer complaint, which is filed on 12th January 2022. He further argued that in his written version this fact has been clearly mentioned in special pleading and by preferring present Review Application opposite party prayed to dismiss the complaint with cost being order obtained by playing fraud upon court.
4. Ld. Counsel for complaint has also filed his reply on 8th December 2022 in EA bearing no. 104 2022 stating that it is specifically submitted that opposite party has paid whole amount but Counsel have no information about the payment of claim in this case, so he have filed the reply to the opposite party in this case and it is submitted that no other document received by Counsel and/or brought to his knowledge even the copy of written version supplied by opposite party no.1 does not contain said hand written LINE which reads like (A) of special pleadings “…… the complaint has been paid Rs. 2 lacs by opposite party (D.O. 3) on 02.11.2021. The complaint be dismissed.” Since learned Counsel does not know the effect that complainant has received the amount and there is no documentary evidence brought before this Commission by opposite party No.1 he has no opportunity to withdraw the complaint and he has not done any wrong or professional negligence.
5. Heard both the ld. Counsel and perused execution application EA- 104 of 2022 Review application RA- 5 of 2022 and also called original consumer case – CC/23/2022, written version filed by opposite party on 29th March 2022 and the copy of written version supplied to complaints counsel.
6. The Government of Maharashtra has brought this beneficial scheme for family members /legal heirs who are in need of financial support after death of earning member of agriculturist / farmer community. Under the scheme, insurance claims are directly paid through NEFT/ RTGS online mode by the insurance companies in the account of legal heirs as per the details provided by the legal heirs of deceased farmer. The present review application filed by opposite party no.1 for the first time file documents showing that direct credit of insurance claim amount of Rupees two lakhs has been credited in the account of complainant on 02.11.2021. Though they have mentioned in their special pleading, it is to be noted in that whole written version is typed and carry signature of branch manager along with banks seal. If we peruse the handwritten line, (A) of special pleadings “…… the complaint has been paid Rs. 2 lacs by opposite party (D.O. 3) on 02.11.2021. The complaint be dismissed.” And the copy supplied to ld. Counsel for the complainant by opposite party No.1 does not contains said line, it is to be also noted that written version file on 29th March 2022 thereafter opposite party No.1 has file the written argument in which they fail to mention above fact and apart from this the Counsel for the opposite party No.1 has sought adjournments on the ground that a draft counter affidavit has been send for signature of the opposite party no.1 and after receiving the counter affidavit they will file counter affidavit before the commission. Inspite of allowing the adjournment applications on two occasions the OP No.1 failed to file the counter affidavit and only filed a pursis informing that the written version file by the opposite party No.1 be treated as there counter affidavit and thereafter they have filed the written arguments in which the above mention fact was not mentioned. Therefore in absence of any documentary evidence in original consumer case CC/23/2022 was allowed on merit as per the available documents before us.
7. From above facts the original complaint read along with EA and Review Application it is clear that valuable time of this Commission has been wasted. The complainant must have disclosed this fact to her Counsel. She does not inform to her Counsel and knowingly above fact that insurance claim is already paid by the insurance company before filing of the consumer complaint and moreover she also filed the execution application where in the verification clause she has put her thumb impression this shows malefide intention on part of the complainant to extract the amount by playing fraud upon this Commission. This being so and being the protector of the rights of the consumer it is our bounded duty to protect the commission from the unscrupulous complainants and the consumers should not misuse and abuse the process of law and the act of the complainant is unpardonable. Similarly opposite party No.1 knowing the fact fails to file documentary evidence this also amounts to negligence on part of OP no.1. This being so being the court of equity, the parties must pay some cost who has obtained the order by playing the fraud upon the commission to protect the rights of genuine consumers. Hence for above reason Review Application is allowed and order dated 15th September 2017 in CC/23/2022 is set-aside with cost of Rs 5,000/- each to be paid by the complainant and the opposite party No.1 in the legal aid of this Commission.
Review Application RA/22/5 is disposed off with above directions and Execution Application being not maintainable is also disposed off accordingly. Certified Copy of the order be provided to the parties as per rules. File be consigned to the record room.
