Dated: 23.01.2023

O R D E R

BY HON’BLE Mr. JUSTICE HULUVADI G RAMESH : PRESIDENT

1. This Appeal filed by OPs under Section 15 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986, aggrieved by an order dated 11.12.2019, passed in CC/83/2016 by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kalaburagi (herein after referred as District Commission and the parties arrayed as in the consumer complaint)

2. Commission examined grounds of appeal and impugned order and heard learned counsel for OPs.

3. It is undisputed fact that the deceased Mr.Sunil S/o Kashinath Hiremath had taken policy bearing No.665820658 from OPs by showing complainant i.e., his wife Smt.Surekha as nominee.  The cause of death of Mr.Sunil S/o Kashinath Hiremath also not in dispute at all.  The only dispute is related to the entitlement of the claim amount.  Appellants/OPs alleged that the policy was in lapsed condition as on the date of death of Mr.Sunil and  the Forum below erred in passing the impugned order without considering the terms and conditions of the policy especially Clause-5 of the policy bond. Further learned counsel for appellants/OPs submits that the policy status produced by the complainant which are marked as Ex.P3 and P3(a) are not genuine one.  In this regard, Commission examined the impugned order wherein could see the Forum below appointed the Court Commissioner by name Mukund R Desai, Computer Programmer, Private Company, Bangalore to inspect the data as on 05.06.2014 but it is stated that the said Court Commissioner was unable to submit report due to non-furnishing of the information by OPs/Appellants with respect to the fact where exactly the location of data i.e., branch office and place is available.  It is to be noted herein that at the end of page-7 of the impugned order could see the complainant/respondent has produced LIC policy guidelines/terms and conditions, wherein it bring ups as “......the status of the scheme is available at the branch that services the policy and the status of the plan is available at the department that maintains the plan”.  It is worth to mention here that OP1/Appellant No.1 is the City Branch-2 of Insurance Company from where the deceased Mr.Sunil had taken policy and OP2/Appellant No.2 is the Divisional Office of the Insurance Company.  In our view, the Forum below could have instructed the Court Commissioner as per the said guidelines/terms and conditions to inspect the said branch to extract the policy status or otherwise the respondent/complainant herself could have guided the Court Commissioner for the same.  The Forum below without taking into account the terms and conditions of the policy and without looking into the history of premium transaction, passed the impugned order only on the basis of none furnishing of information by OPs to Court Commission is contrary to law. Thus with such observation, in our view, it would be just and proper to remand back the matter to Forum below to reconsider the case afresh affording opportunity to both the parties and to decide the case in accordance with law.

4. The Amount in deposit is directed to be transfer to the Forum below for needful.

5. Send a copy of this Order to the District Commission and parties to the appeal.

Lady Member                             Judicial Member                                          President

*GGH*