ORDER

 02.05.2017

Upendra Jha (M).

                              This appeal is preferred against the order dated 21.10.2014 passed by the District Consumer Forum, Nawada in Complaint Case No. 73 of 2013 by which the appellant is directed to pay the respondent a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- (One lacs only) with interest @7% from 02.02.2013 compensation of Rs. 3000/- and litigation cost of Rs. 2000/-.

2.                       Brief facts of this case is that Sri Indra deo Narayan Singh husband of the complainant opted for monthly premium deposit for Rs. 1160/- per month and paid Rs. 1168/- for September, 2011 Rs. 1168/- for October, 2011, Rs. 8162/- for November on 15.05.2012 and delay deposit regularized till March, 2012 and up to May 2012 for seven months. Its maturity date was 02.09.2019 so, it was ‘Lapsing of policy and the policy became void under Rule 56 (i) and 56 (2). The appellant opposite party was informed on 03.08.2012 and reminded several time by pleaders notice. But the sum assured was not settled. Then she filed a complaint before the District Forum. The opposite party- appellant despite notices did not contest the case properly. The district Forum passed the impugned order against which this appeal is preferred.

3.                                       Written notes of arguments is filed by the appellant. The counsel for the respondent filed vakalatnama on 06.05.2015 but could not file any response and could not appear at the time of hearing despite notices.

4.                             The counsel for the appellant submits that the husband of the complainant obtained RPLI policy for Rs. 1,00,000/- (One lacs only) on monthly premium deposit @ Rs. 1166/- from September 2011 which was to be matured on 02.09.2019. But the premium were deposited irregularly and delayed deposit. The policy holder died on 02.06.2012. it was lapsed policy and void policy under rule 56 (i) and 56 (2). The policy was never revived so it was lapsed policy. But the District Forum has not considered the Rule 56 (1) & 56 (2) and has allowed the claim against the law. However, order passed by the District Forum is not sustainable and fit to be set aside. The appeal be allowed.

5.                      Having considered the grounds taken in appeal submission of the appellant and on perusal of the order passed by the District Forum it appears that in the District Forum the opposite party- appellant could not submit its response and did not file written arguments or written statement. So the District Forum passed ex-parte order. The District Forum has not considered the Rule 58 (I) and 58 (2) of post office life Insurance Rules, 2011 before passing the impugned order. It needs fresh hearing of both parties to consider the Rule 58 (i) & 58 (2) of the Rule 2011. The District Forum order is not sustainable. Hence, the District Forum order is set aside. The appeal is allowed and remanded to the District Forum for fresh hearing giving opportunity to both sides taking evidence if any and for receipt of this order.

6.        The appeal is allowed.

S.K. Sinha                                                                    Upendra Jha

President                                                                      Member(M)

Mukund