STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

BIHAR, PATNA

Appeal No.165 of 18

(Arising out of complaint case no.01/2018)

Hadisha Khatoon, Wife of Late Razikuddin, R/O- Village- Dhutauli Malpa, P.S.- Chautham, District- Khagaria (Bihar) PIN-851201. 

                                                                                                                                       …......... Appellant/Complainant

Versus

1. The Branch Manager, Shriram, L.I.C Ltd. Plot No.31 and 32, 5^th Floor, Training Centre, Financial, District- Gachhiboli, Hyderabad, Pin-500132.
2. The Branch Manager, Shriram L.I.C Ltd., 2^nd Floor, P.S.- Electrocution Complex, Plot No.EN. -10, Sector Salt Lake City,  Kolkata (W.B), Pin-700091.
3. The Branch Manager, Shriram, L.I.C Ltd., 2^nd Floor, Luv Kush Tower, Exhibition Road Chauraha, Patna-01.
4. 
                                                                                                                                         ............Respondents/Opposite parties

            Learned Counsel for the Appellant:- Md. Irshad Ahmad

            Learned Counsel for the Respondent:- Mr. Alok Kumar Sahi.

Before,

                Miss Gita Verma, Judicial Member

    Mr. Raj Kumar Pandey, Member

ORDER

Per:Raj Kumar Pandey (Member)

Dated-24.08.2023

1.                     Heard learned counsels appeared on behalf of both the parties, perused the materials available on record and also gone thorugh the written notes of arguments filed on behalf of the parties.

2.                     This appeal has been filed by the Appellant/complainant against the order dated 12.02.2018 passed by the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (Commission), Khagaria (in short the learned District Commission) in complaint case No.01 of2018, by which the 2^nd  complaint filed by the complainant/Appellant was dismissed for want of jurisdiction.

3.               It is pertinent to mentioned here that earlier, the first complaint vide complaint Case No.47 of 2015 filed by the complainant was dismissed by the learned District Commission vide its order dated 28.01.2016 on the ground for want of jurisdiction.”

                  The grounds on which the 1^st mentioned complaint case No.47 of 2015 was dismissed by the learned District Commission is as under:-

            “ Under the above facts and circumstances, this Complainant case is not maintainable within the territorial jurisdiction of this Consumer Redressal Forum”.

4.             The second complaint case no.1/2018 filed by the appellant (complainant ) was dismissed on the ground that the previous complaint case no.47/2015 was dismissed on 28.01.2016 under section-11 (2) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 hence this complaint case is not admissible as same Consumer Forum got no power to revise or review, it’s own order.

5.                 After perusal of the operative parts of both the order it appears that the Insurance Policy in question was taken from Patna Branch and the life assured (L/A) Razikuddin was resident of District-Khagaria, where there was no Branch Office of Opposite party was situated. Above mentioned complaint cases were filed by Hadisha Khatoon wife of Late Razikuddion (the deceased L/A). She was resident of District-Khagaria and as per the provision of section 11 (2) of the consumer Protection Act.1986, “the complaint was only maintainable, if the opposite party actually and voluntarily resides or carries on business or has a Branch Office or personally works for gain”, within the local limits of the District Forum.

6.                  After enforcement of the Consumer Protection Act-2019,  the Act no.68 of 1986 has been repealed under the provisions of Section-107 of new Act (Act no.35 of 2019), which reads as follows:-

      “ Section-107 Repeal and savings.- (1) The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (68 of 1986) is hereby repealed.

            (2) Notwithstanding such repeal, anything done or any action taken or purported to have been done or taken under the Act hereby repealed shall, in so far as it is not inconsistent with the provisions of this Act, be deemed to have been done or taken under the corresponding provisions of this Act.

          (3) The mention of particular matters in sub-section (2) shall not be held to prejudice or affect the general application of section-6 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 (10 of 1987) with regard to the effect of repeal.”

7.       After perusal of the above provisions of section-107,  It appears that  the provisions of section-107 is not retrospective effect rather this provision is prospective in nature. The present Act came into force during the pendency of this appeal in this State Commission. But the order passed in complaint case no.01 of 2018 which is under challenge was not wrong because the said order was passed in accordance with provisions laid down in Consumer Protection Act 1986 (Act No.68 of 1986), which had legal force at that time.

8.            The Appellate Jurisdiction of the State Commission is mainly concerned with to hear the appeal either on fact or on law.  In present appeal we find no any violation of law because the order passed regarding pecuniary jurisdiction by the learned State Commission requires no interference. However, the appellant/ complainant has liberty to seek remedy  available under the law. 

9.                 As such this appeal stands disposed of.

10.            A copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of cost as mandated by the C.P. Act 2019.Order be uploaded forthwith on the confonet of the State Commission.

11.              Let the file be consigned in the record room along with copy of this order.

(Raj Kumar Pandey)                                                                                                        (Gita Verma)

      Member (M)                                                                                                              Judicial Member (F)

Mukund