HDFC STANDARD LIFE INSURANCE CO. LTD. vs KRISHNA DEVI & ANR.

In this revision petition filed under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act,1986(for short, ''Act''), there is challenge to order dated 19.12.2011 passed by Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chandigarh (for short, ''State Commission'')

Brief facts of this case are that Complainant -Krishna Devi (widow of Darshan Lal Kochhar) had filed a consumer complaint under Section 12 of the Act before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ferozepur (for short ''District Forum'') on the allegations

that Shri Darshal Lal Kochhar had obtained a policy from Respondent No.2-Bank/Opposite Party No.1, which was issued by the Petitioner-Insurance Company/Opposite Party No.2. Complainant is the nominee of Darshan Lal Kochhar.

It is stated that Darshal Lal Kochar had died on 16.4.2006 due to heart attack. Thereafter, complainant approached the opposite parties for payment of insured amount. However, same was declined by them.

Before the District Forum, petitioner was proceeded ex parte, whereas respondent no.2 contested the complaint.

District Forum vide its order dated 31.10.2006, dismissed the complaint.

Being aggrieved, complainant filed (First Appeal No.1566 of 2006) before the State Commission. The State Commission vide impugned order dated 19.12.2011 allowed the appeal and directed the petitioner as well as respondent no.2, to pay the amount of policy to the complainant.

Now petitioner has filed this revision petition.

Notice of the petition was issued to the Complainant-Respondent No.1 and also to Respondent No.2

During pendency of this revision, on 13.11.2013 an application under Order 22 Rule 4 of the CPC for impleadment of legal representatives of Smt. Krishna Devi-Complainant was filed by her legal heirs.

On 13.10.2014, when matter was listed for admission hearing, there was no appearance on behalf of respondent no.1/complainant. Hence, respondent no.1 was proceeded ex parte.

We have heard the arguments advanced by ld. counsels for the petitioner as well as respondent no.2.

As per the death certificate placed on record by the legal heirs of deceased complainant-Smt. Krishna Devi, she had died on 20.12.2010. Thus, the complainant who was appellant before the State Commission had died during pendency of the appeal itself. However, this fact was never brought to the notice of the State Commission. Later on, the appeal was decided on 19.12.2011.

Therefore, the order passed by the State Commission in the appeal on 19.12.2011 is null and void, since appeal filed by respondent no.1 stood abated after her death, as admittedly no application for bringing her legal heirs on record was filed within the period of limitation.

Be that as it may, now application for impleadment of LRs of deceased complainant has been filed only on 13.11.2013. This application is hopelessly barred by limitation, as there is delay of about two years and nine months. Moreover, no application for condonation of delay has been filed.

Since, the complainant (appellant before the State Commission) had died during the pendency of the appeal and no application for bringing legal heirs on record was filed before the State Commission, therefore the appeal filed by the complainant stood abated and order passed by the State Commission is a nullity.

Consequently, we have no option but to allow the present revision petition. Accordingly, we allow this revision and set aside the impugned order passed by the State Commission. Application under Order 22 Rule 4 of the CPC filed before us being hopelessly barred by limitation stand dismissed.