Present         (1)     Nisha Nath Ojha,   

                              District & Sessions Judge (Retd.)                  President

                    (2)     Smt. Karishma Mandal,

                              Member

Date of Order : 31.05.2016

                    Nisha Nath Ojha

Heard the counsel for the parties on the admission matter.

The complainant is the wife of insured husband with whom she was married on 28.06.2012 but unfortunately her husband died in an accident after two years of her marriage and his dead body was recovered from sea on 21.12.2014. The husband of the complainant was a marine engineer on a ship.

The complainant has further asserted that her husband Late Ranjeet Kumar had taken two life insurance policy of Rs. 10,00,000/- each dated 28.05.2011 and 29.05.2011 vide policy no. 517412018 and 529438759 as will appear from annexure – 1 and 2.

The complainant has further stated that aforesaid L.I.C. policy was taken by her husband prior to date of her marriage but due to lack of time he did not change the nominee before his death.

The grievance of the complainant is that after marriage, she became first legal heir of her husband and was entitled for the insurance amount but whole amount was paid to opposite party no. 4 ( wrongly written as opposite party no. 5) by insurance company on the ground that opposite party no. 5 was the nominee.

It is admitted between the parties that insurance amount has been paid to father – in – law of the complainant who was the nominee. In Para – 10 of complaint petition it is stated that the complainant had filed a writ petition no. CWJC no. 3187 of 2017 but no any photocopy or certified copy of order has been annexed for our perusal.

At the time of hearing of this case for the purpose of admission, both parties have agreed that now it is family disputed between father – in – law and the complainant who is wife of the deceased husband.

In our opinion such a dispute cannot be entertained under the provision of Consumer Protection Act 1986.

For the reason stated above we are not inclined to admit this case.

However, the complainant is at liberty to approach competent court of 

law/tribunal etc. for redressal of her grievance because we have not even touched the merit of this case.

For the aforesaid reason this complaint stands dismissed for not being maintainable before this Forum under the provision of Consumer Protection Act 1986.

Member   (F)                                       President