FA 1648/2005    against CD No. 105/2003   on the file of the

 District Consumer Forum II, Hyderabad

Between:

Andhra Bank rep. by its Chief Manager,

Sabastian Road Branch,

Secunderabad.                                . Appellant/opposite party No. 1

And

1. Smt. Swaraj Edwards, W/o Late Edward Solomon

Aged 55 years, occ : Teacher, R/o 202, 2^nd floor,

      Prathiba apartments, Sabastian Road, … Respondent/complainant

2. The New India insurance Co. Ltd., 

9^th floor, Parishram Bhavan, Fatehmaidan Road,

Hyderabad.                               .. Respondent/opposite party no. 1

Counsel for the Appellant               :        M/s. M. V. Subba Reddy.

Counsel for the   Respondents          :         M/s. K. Ramakrishna for R1

                                                                        Mr. D. R. Kulakarni for R2

CORAM    :  HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D. APPA RAO   … PRESIDENT

SMT. M. SHREESHA                                  … LADY MEMBER

                                                            AND

                        SRI G. BHUPATHI REDDY                       … MALE MEMBER

Thursday , the Eleventh  Day of September, Two Thousand Eight

Oral order :   ( as per Sri G. Bhupathi Reddy, Hon’ble Member )

*           *           *

This is an appeal filed by the appellant/ 1^st opposite party    U/s.15 of the Consumer Protection  Act to set aside  the order passed by the District Forum II, Hyderabad    in CD No 105/2003  dated 25^th July, 2005.

The case of the complainant in brief is that she is the nominee and wife of late Sri Edward Solomon who is having Abhaya Platinum Savings Bank Account No. 4 with OP.1 Bank.  The husband of the complainant expired in the Car accident on 10.06.1999 at Madhupada village, Vizianagaram District, Andhra Pradesh.  The 1^st opposite party by letter dated 04.01.2000 addressed to 2^nd opposite party  repudiating the claim on the ground that the account-holder did not fulfill the terms and conditions under the scheme and that they  did not maintain the minimum balance of Rs.5000/-.  It is further stated that the first opposite party failed  to remit Rs.200/- every year towards insurance premium  from the amount of the account holder. Hence the complaint alleging deficiency in service.

The main contention of the first opposite party is that as the account holder did not maintain minimum balance of Rs.5000/-  and hence Rs.200/- could not be deducted towards insurance premium as per the terms and conditions of the Scheme. Hence prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

The second opposite party contended that during the year 1999 minimum balance of Rs.5000/- was not maintained, as a result of which, the first opposite party did not remit  Rs.200/- towards premium to the second opposite party as per the terms and conditions of he scheme and as the first opposite party did not remit premium amount and hence they repudiated the claim of the complainant.

          The complainant  filed Ex. A1 to A7 in support of her  case and Ex B1 to B7  are marked on behalf of the opposite parties. Based on the evidence adduced on record , the District Forum directed the first opposite party  to pay an amount of Rs.5 lakhs towards insurance amount  with 12% interest   to the complainant from 21.06.2002 and costs of Rs.1000/-.. Aggrieved by the said order, the present appeal has been filed.

The point that arises for determination in this appeal is, whether  the District Forum II, Hyderabad is having jurisdiction to try the case  and  whether its finding is sustainable ?

The grounds of appeal are as follows :   The order of the District Forum II, Hyderabad is illegal, arbitrary, violative of principles of natural justice and contrary to the principles of Law.  The District Forum II, Hyderabad is not having jurisdiction to hear the case. As per the order of this Commission dated 14.06.2005,  CD 105/2003 was transferred from District Forum II, Hyderabad  to District Forum III, Hyderabad and after the said transfer,  the case was posted on 15.7.2005, 22.07.2005, 10.08.2005 and again on 02.09.2005.  After transfer of the said case, the District Forum II, Hyderabad ought not to have dispose of the case.  The District Forum has not given any notice about the hearing of the case to the parties.  The case was disposed on 25.07.2005 by the District Forum.  The complainant  failed to comply with the terms and conditions of the Abhaya Platinum Scheme and hence not entitled to the benefits of the scheme.  The complainant did not maintain minimum balance amount of Rs.5000/- at any point of time  and hence the first opposite party  is not obliged to debit a sum of Rs.200/- towards insurance premium.  The account of the husband  of the complainant did not have minimum balance of Rs.5000/- since 12.10.1998 till the death of the account holder. Hence the order passed by the District Forum may be set aside.

          The appellant contended that when the case was transferred  from the District Forum II, Hyderabad to the District Forum III, Hyderabad as per the order of this State commission, the District Forum II, Hyderabad is not  having jurisdiction to dispose of the case and hence the order passed by the District Forum is illegal and the same may be set aside.  The respondents contended  that the District Forum has discussed  the matter on the point of jurisdiction as well as merits of the case, the District Forum decided that there is deficiency in service on the part of the appellants  and hence  the order of the District Forum may be confirmed.  The submission made by the appellants are concerned, no doubt that the District Forum has discussed  the jurisdiction aspect  as well as the merits of the case and directed the appellants  to pay Rs. five lakhs  towards insurance amount  as per the terms and conditions of the policy along with 12% interest from the date o the complaint i.e, 21.06.2002 and Rs.1000/- towards costs  while dismissing the complaint against the second opposite party.  The submission made by the complainants with regard to the jurisdiction aspect is concerned,  the appellants have taken a specific plea  that when the case was transferred to the District Forum III, Hyderabad, the District Forum II, Hyderabad ought not to have dispose of  the case as it is not having jurisdiction  and hence the order of the District Forum is not sustainable.

 The submission made by the appellants are concerned, we have gone through  the proceedings of the Registrar in                 Roc. No. 873/2005/APSCDRC/Admn/dt.9.6.2005 as per Sec. 24-B of the Consumer Protection Act, in which, the list of cases  which were transferred  from the District Forum II, Hyderabad to District Forum III, Hyderabad are mentioned.  As per the said order, CD 105/2005 was also  transferred from the District Forum II, Hyderabad to the District Forum III, Hyderabad.  The said proceedings of the Registrar of  this Commission  was received by the District Forum II, Hyderabad  as well as District Forum III, Hyderabad on 18.06.2008 as per the endorsement made by both the District Forums.   On the basis of the said proceedings the District Forum III, Hyderabad  has posted the CD No. 105/2003 on 15.07.2005, 22.7.2005, 10.08.2005  and again on 2.09.2005, there after, there was no mention about the posting of the said case  in the A- Diary maintained by the District Forum III, Hyderabad. 

 We have also perused the Docket Sheet Order  of the District Forum II, Hyderabad and noticed that the said case  is not transferred to the District Forum III, Hyderabad and the District Forum II, Hyderabad has disposed of the case  on merits on 25^th July, 2005, whereas, the transfer order of the State Commission was received by the District Forum on 18.06.2005.  The District Forum II, Hyderabad ought no to have disposed of the case when the District Forum II, Hyderabad  is not having jurisdiction. Hence, the District Forum II, Hyderabad has committed illegality in disposing of  the case after  receiving the  order from the State Commission transferring the said case to the District Forum III, Hyderabad. The District Forum II, Hyderabad  has not given any notice  either to the complainant or the opposite parties after transfer order was  received from the State Commission.  Even the District Forum III, Hyderabad  also not intimated the complainant or the opposite parties  about the transfer of the case to the District Forum III, Hyderabad. 

 The first respondent  contended   that the complainant is the nominee of Sri Edward Solomon,    who opened an Account under Abhaya Platinum Savings Bank with the appellant bank, as per the said scheme, the individual should have maintained  a balance of Rs.5000/-  in their Account, out of which,  the insurance premium of Rs.200/-  per year will be deducted.   The first opposite party issued a pass book in favour of the  husband of the complainant. Due to the negligence of the first opposite party the husband of the complainant did not maintain the minimum balance amount of Rs.5000/-. The husband of the complainant expired in the car accident on 10.06.1999 and as per the said scheme, the complainant is entitled to  the policy amount.  The submission made by the respondents is that the case was decided on the basis of the merits of the case and the finding given by the District Forum can be taken into consideration.  The District Forum II, Hyderabad  is not having jurisdiction to dispose of the case in the circumstances of the case is concerned.  It is not desirable to give finding  on the aspect of the deficiency of service on the part of the appellant is concerned.  On the other hand,   as the District Forum II, Hyderabad  is not having jurisdiction since  the matter was transferred to District Forum III, Hyderabad, the District Forum  II, Hyderabad  ought  not to have decided the case on merits.  In the circumstances of the case is concerned,  the order passed by the District Forum is not sustainable. Hence, the order passed by the District Forum is set aside.  The complaint is remanded back to the District Forum III, Hyderabad  with a direction to dispose of the case on merits and the District Forum III, Hyderabad  is also directed to give notice  to both parties and conduct de nova enquiry  and dispose of  the case  expeditiously.  In the circumstances of the case, no costs.

                                       President       Lady Member     Male Member          

                                                                           Dated : 11.09.2008