FINAL ORDER/JUDGMENT   

SMT. SUKLA SENGUPTA, PRESIDENT

On a close scrutiny of the materials of the record it appears that One Srikant Pandey has filed the petition of complaint on 08.02.2023  and the matter was fixed for admission hearing on 27.02.2023.  Since then till 03.05.2023 the complainant is found absent on repeated calls on each date of admission hearing.  He was directed to show cause as to why the case shall not be dismissed, but neither he appeared before this Commission nor filed the show cause.  The Stipulated period of 21 days has gone since long back.  Under such circumstances as per mandate U/S 38 Clause 3 (c) of the C.P. Act, 2019 “to deicide the complaint on merit if the complainant failed to appear on the date of admission hearing” – under such circumstances the case is taken up for final disposal.

Perused the petition of complaint filed by the complainant.  

It appears that One Manoj Kumar Pandey since deceased is the brother of the complainant who died instead on 28.02.2021 at his native village of Mohan Dadwar within the State of Bihar-821101.  Death Certificate was issued in the name of deceased by the Dptt. of Planning & Development through Gram Pnachayat Mahuat of the State of Bihar dated 11.06.2020.  It is further stated that the deceased was a permanent resident of state of West Bengal, T-28, S.A. Farroque Road, Post-Burtolla, P.S. -Rajabagan formerly Metiabruz, Kolkata-700018 which is situated within the jurisdiction of this Commission.  It is further stated that Manoj Kumar Pandey during his lifetime purchased a policy under “PMJJBY” a public benefit policy finance and endorsed by Government of India under the OP-1 being master policy No. JJ000002 being application No. 2022663052 and A/c No. 520101242092485 insured value at Rs.2,00,000/- and the complainant being the uncle was the nominee of the said policy. 

It is alleged by the complainant that the placed the claim before the insurance company and that was repudiate by the insurance company.

Hence, this case is filed with a prayer to give direction to the OP-1 to give the policy amount of Rs.2,00,000/- to the complainant along with other reliefs.

On the basis of the facts as stated above, it is to be considered whether the complainant is a consumer and entitled to get the relief as prayed for.

From the materials on record it appears that the complainant since filing of this case did not appear before this Commission with the cogent documents.  He never placed any document before this Commission in support of his claim to show that the case is tenable against the OPs and the case could be entertained by this Commission as per provision of law.  No such document has come before this commission except the photocopies to prove that the complainant is a consumer in the eye of law.  Moreover, without having any cogent evidence and without considering the matter whether it is admissible by this Commission or not it cannot be said that the complainant is a consumer and he is entitled to get the relief as prayed for, rather from the conduct of the complainant it appears that he is highly reluctant to proceed with the case.

 Hence, in view of the discussion, made above the Commission is of view that the case is not admissible and the complainant failed to prove his case on merit beyond all reasonable doubt.

Hence, the points of consideration is decided against the complainant.

Hence,

ORDERED

that the case be and the same is dismissed on merit without cost.