1.       The present Revision Petition (RP) has been filed by the Petitioners against Respondents as detailed above, under section 21(b) of Consumer Protection Act 1986, against the order dated 06.12.2016 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bihar (hereinafter referred to as the ‘State Commission’), in First Appeal (FA) No 361/2015 in which order dated 15.09.2015 of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Motihari (hereinafter referred to as District Forum) in Consumer Complaint (CC) No. 168/2012 was challenged, inter alia praying for quashing/setting aside the impugned order dated 06.12.2016 passed by the state Commission  and dismissing the consumer complaint No. 168/2012 before the District Forum.

2.       While the Revision Petitioner(s) (hereinafter also referred to as OPs/Insurance Company) was Appellant before the State Commission and OP-1 before the District Forum and the Respondent No.1 (hereinafter also referred to as complainant) was Respondent before the State Commission and complainant before the District Forum.  Respondent No.2 (hereinafter referred to as OP-2/Bank) was not a party before the State Commission and was OP-2 before the District Forum.

3.       Notice was issued to the Respondent(s) on 13.04.2018.  Petitioner submitted hard copy of written arguments before the Bench on 18.12.2023.

4.       Brief facts of the case, as emerged from the RP, Order of the State Commission, Order of the District Commission and other case records are that:

The Respondent/complainant purchased a Life Insurance Corporation Policy under Table No. 106-15 (Money Back Scheme) for Rs.1,00,000/- with premium of Rs.12,748/-.  Under the said Policy, complainant was entitled to a time-bound money back benefit (survival benefit) of an amount of Rs.30,000/- every 4 years i.e. each in the year 2005, 2009 and 2013.  The said policy was issued in the name of complainant and Smt. Usha Singh as the nominee of the policy.  The Opposite Party did not give the survival benefit of the Insurance Policy to the complainant during the year 2005 and 2009 to the tune of Rs.30,000/- each.  Hence, the complainant filed complaint before the District Forum.

5.       Vide Order dated 15.09.2015, in the CC No. 168/2012 the District Forum has allowed the complainant and passed the following order:-

“…. the Opposite Party No.1 is being directed to pay the compensation Rs.60,000/- within 2 months along with 9% interest through cheque and pay Rs.5,000/- as compensation towards the physical and mental harassment caused to him with 9% interest from the date of filing this complaint to the date of actual payment.”

6.       Aggrieved by the said Order dated 15.09.2015 of District Forum, Petitioner(s) appealed in State Commission and the State Commission vide order dated 06.12.2016 in FA No. 361/2015 has dismissed the Appeal and affirmed the order of the District Forum.

7.       Petitioner(s) have challenged the said Order dated 15.09.2015 of the State Commission mainly on following grounds:

(i)      The impugned order has been passed in complete disregard of the true and correct facts of the case, the evidence placed on record by the Petitioners, and the applicable principles of law and is as such legally untenable in its entirely.  The State Commission has failed to exercise the statutory mandate enjoined upon it by Section 24A of the Act, and dismissed the complaint being barred by limitation.  The State Commission has acted with material irregularity, the impugned order suffers from material irregularity as it ignores the evidence on record before it.  Admittedly, the amounts in question were payable to Respondent No.1 as per the policy in the month of February in the year 2005 and 2009 and the cause of action (if any) for filing a consumer complaint accrued in the years 2005 and 2009.  Respondent No.1 could have instituted the complaint alleging non-payment of the said amount of Rs.60,000/-, latest by February 2007 (for the payment due in the year 2005) and February, 2011 (for the payment due in the year 2009) in terms of Section 24 A of the Act.  The State Commission failed to appreciate that the complaint was filed in the year 2012, without any application seeking condonation of the delay.  The Hon’ble Supreme Court has held in several landmark cases, that the question of limitation is a mandate to the Forum and, irrespective of the fact whether it is raised or not, the Forum must consider and apply it.

(ii)     The State Commission failed to appreciate the evidence placed by the Petitioners on record, particularly, bank statements and Certificates dated 20.11.2015 issued by the Uttar Gramin Bank.  The said certificates attest to the fact that cheques bearing No. 14112 dated 28.02.2005 and No. 102136 dated 28.02.2009 both for a sum of Rs.30,000/- each, drawn on Central Bank of India, Motihari Brach, which amounts are alleged to not have been received by Respondent-1, stand duly received and encahsed by Respondent No.1 and amounts duly credited to his savings bank account bearing account No. 1291 maintained with Uttar Gramin Bank, Kesariya, Motihari (South), Bihar on 01.03.2005 and 09.03.2009 respectively. 

(iii)    The State Commission has mechanically upheld the order dated 15.09.2015 of the District Forum without applying its mind and without appreciating the pleadings as well as the documents placed on record.

(iv)    The District Forum erred in upholding that the cheques have been issued in the name of one Mr. SPN Singh, sans any pleading/averment or contention by Respondent No.1, in this regard.  There is not even a whisper in the complaint by Respondent No.1 that the payments have been made to the account of one Mr. S.P.N. Singh.  The observation of State Commission upholding the said finding of District Forum without perusing the record is illegal.

(v)     The State Commission failed to appreciate the contention of the Petitioners that Respondent-1 had concealed from District Forum, the status report of the Policy in question obtained by him from the Petitioner, which clearly shows credit of the said payments to Respondent-1, despite having knowledge of the same. 

(vi)    The State Commission failed to appreciate the statement of Account of the bank account maintained by the  Petitioners for the year 2005 and 2009, which were placed on record of the Appeal, clearly reflect the debit of amounts of Rs.30,000/- each for both 2005 and 2009 and corresponding credit to the account of Respondent No.1.  The orders of both the Fora below are passed on the basis that said amounts of Rs.30,000/- each had been credited to the account of Shri SPN Singh instead of the Respondent -1, which is incorrect.  The State Commission failed  to appreciate the evidence on record which conclusively proves that the Respondent No.1 had falsely alleged to have not received the said amount of Rs.30,000/- in his complaint. 

(vii)   Both the Fora below have put Petitioner No.1 in double jeopardy, by burdening it with the unjustified liability of making payment of amounts, which evidently stand already received, encashed and realized by Respondent No.1. Petitioner-1 is the custodian of public funds.  If the impugned order is upheld, will result in Respondent No.1 unjustly enriching himself at the expense of public money. 

8.       Heard counsel for the Petitioner.  None appeared on behalf of Respondents, hence proceeded ex parte.  Contentions/pleas, on various issues raised in the RP, Written Arguments by the Petitioners and Oral Arguments advanced by the Counsel for the Petitioners during the hearing, are summed up below.

8.1     It is contended by the Petitioners that in terms of the policy, OP-1 disbursed the money back benefit to the complainant as and when the same became due and payable, vide cheque for Rs.30,000/-  dated 28.02.2005 and on 28.02.2009 for Rs. 30,000/- drawn on Central Bank of India, Motihari Branch and thereafter Rs.40,000/- vide cheque No. 105757 drawn on HDFC Bank, Motihari Branch.  The said cheques were duly received and encahsed by the complainant/Respondent No.1.  Despite due receipt and realization of the amount of Rs.60,000/- (Rs.30,000/- each towards the money-back benefit payable to Respondent -1  in the year 2005 and in the year 2009, the complainant/Respondent-1 approached the District Forum with a false, frivolous and vexatious consumer complaint against the Petitioners, alleging deficiency in service on account of non-payment of Rs.60,000/- .  It  is further contended that the cheques issued by the Petitioner-1 were duly encashed by Respondent No.1 and credited to its account maintained with Uttar Bihar Gramin Bank (which was inadvertently mentioned as Central Bank of India, Motihari in the Written Version before the District Forum).  The said inadverstent error was sought to be corrected and the amendment/substitution of the name of the drawee bank from Central Bank of India to Uttar Bihar Gramin Bank was allowed vide order  dated 18.08.2015 passed by the District Forum.  The Petitioners duly placed on record cheques and statement of account of Respondent No.1 and the other documents/annexures which had been filed by the parties before the District Forum, as also the Certificates dated 20.11.2015 received from the Uttar Gramin Bank through  its Regional Office Motihari (Sough) to establish that the payment of Rs.60,000/- was duly received by Respondent No.1.  It is also contended by the Petitioner that pursuant to the order dated 15.09.2015 of the District Forum, the Petitioners, after making inquiries from the banker of  Respondent No.1, learnt that Respondent No.1 had, in fact, duly received and encashed the said amount of Rs.60,000/- way of cheques bearing  No. 141112 dated 28.02.2005  and No. 102136  dated 28.02.2009 both for a  sum of Rs.30,000/- each, drawn on Central Bank of India, Motihari Branch and obtained certificates in this regard.  The Certificates dated 20.11.2015 issued by the Uttar Bihar Gramin Bank i.e. the Banker of Respondent No.1, duly attest to the fact that the said cheques, drawn of Central Bank of India, Motihari Branch, stand duly encashed by Respondent No.1 and the amounts thereof, duly credited to his savings bank account bearing account No. 1291 maintained with Uttar Gramin Bank, Kesariya Motihari (South), Bihar on 01.03.2005 and 09.03.2009. 

          8.2     Despite service of notice, neither the Respondents appear nor filed written arguments, hence, proceeded ex parte.

9.       It is the specific case of the Petitioner LIC that on 28.02.2005, they issued a cheque bearing No. 141112 dated 28.02.2005 for Rs.30,000/- drawn at Central Bank of India, Motihari Branch towards money back benefit payable to respondent no.1 in the year 2005 and that respondent no.1 duly received and encashed the said cheque dated 28.02.2005.  Further, the Petitioner has stated that on 28.02.2009, they issued a cheque bearing no. 102136 dated 28.02.2009 for Rs.30,000/- drawn at Central Bank of India, Motihari Branch towards money back benefit payable to respondent no.1 in the year 2009 and that respondent no.1 duly received and encashed the said cheque dated 28.02.2009. Though cheques issued were drawn at Central Bank of India, Motihari Branch, but these cheques were credited to the account of respondent no.1 in Uttar Bihari Gramin Bank, Motihari and this was clarified by LIC before the State Commission also.  It is admitted that these two cheques were in the name of S.P.N.Singh while the name of the policy holder was Surender Pratap Narayan Singh. This is the only reason that Fora below have not accepted the categorical contentions of the LIC, especially considering that another cheque of Rs.40,000/- in 2013 was issued in the name of Surender Pratap Naryan Singh.  Prima facie, S.P.N. Singh has been used as abbreviated name of Surender Pratap Narayan Singh and if the amount has indeed been received by respondent no.1 and credited to his account, notwithstanding that cheques were in the name of S.P.N. Singh, which is abbreviated form of  his full name Surender Pratap Narayan Singh, does not mean that respondent no.1 has not received the money form the LIC and that LIC is deficient in service in any way. Respondent no.1 cannot be allowed to enrich himself by receiving the amount twice for the same purpose.  Respondent no.1 has not adduced any cogent and reliable evidence to show that he did not receive the said amount of Rs.60,000/- covered under the two cheques of Rs.30,000/- each. Hence, we are in agreement with the contentions of the Petitioner – LIC that they have duly discharged their liability under the policy by paying an amount of Rs.30,000/- vide cheque dated 28.02.005 and another Rs.30,000/- vide cheque dated 28.02.2009, which has been credited in the account of respondent no.1  herein.  Hence, we find that both the fora below went wrong, District Forum in allowing the complaint and State Commission in dismissing the appeal of the Petitioner herein.  Hence, order of the State Commission cannot be sustained, and the same is hereby set aside.  The Complaint is dismissed.  Revision Petition is allowed.

10.     The pending IAs in the case, if any, also stand disposed off.