Life Insurance Corporation of India vs S. PALANIYANDI

THIS Revision Petition is preferred against an order passed in E.P. No. 13/94 on the file of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Nagapattinam. It appears that the respondent herein has filed a petition under Section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act. A reading of the petition shows that it should have been filed only under Section 25. In this petition he has claimed a sum of Rs. 1,13,656/- as due from the petitioner herein who were the opposite parties in the Original Petition. The Original Petition was filed for recovery of the amount due under a policy taken by the deceased the brother of the complainant. In that Original Petition, it was claimed that the insurance policy was for Rs. 1,00,000/- and the insured died in an accident due to bite by a poisonous creature, and the complainant his brother is entitled to the said sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- and also interest thereon. Rejecting the opposition by the opposite parties, the complaint was allowed as prayed for. As against that the opposite parties filed an appeal in this State Commission in A.P. No. 254/94. That appeal was dismissed. Thereupon the complainant filed the above said Execution Petition No. 13/ 94. In the meanwhile, the opposite parties have paid a sum of Rs. 99,246/- as the amount due under the decree. In the E.P. it is stated that as per the decree in the Original Petition the opposite parties were labile to pay Rs. 2,06,451/- and deducting the amount paid by the opposite parties, viz., Rs. 99,246/-, there is still due a sum of Rs. 1,13,654/-.

THE opposite parties contended that since they have paid the entire amount due under the decree, there is no amount due and therefore the Execution Petition is labile to be dismissed. However, it appears that the complainant, in the E.P., contended that the policy was a Double Accident Policy, and that being the case, under the policy the opposite parties are liable to pay double the policy amount i.e. Rs. 2,00,000/-. This was contested by the opposite parties. THE Court conducted an enquiry on this aspect of the matter and held that it was a Double Accident Policy and therefore the complainant was entitled to the amount claimed in the Execution Petition, and it passed an order accordingly. It is against this order, the present Revision Petition has been filed. On a careful consideration of the matter, it appears to us very clearly that the order of the District Forum in the E.P., is not legally sustainable. A perusal of the order in the E.P. shows that in the O.P. the complainant claimed a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- as the amount due under the policy with interest thereon. That claim was allowed. In the appeal also, that claim has been confirmed. Therefore, after the order passed in the Original Petition as well as in the Appeal, the claimant was entitled to only a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- and interest thereon. Either in the Original Petition or in the Appeal, no whisper has been made that the policy was a Double Accident Policy and, therefore, the complainant was entitled to double the amount mentioned in the policy. That being the case, the E.P. should have been only for the amount decreed by the District Forum as well as by the Appellate Court. But the E.P. Court has gone beyond the said decree and held an enquiry whether the policy was a Double Accident Policy as pleaded in the E.P. by the complainant, and after an enquiry, even by examining witnesses, has come to the conclusion that it was a Double Accident Policy and, therefore, the complainant was entitled to the amount claimed in the E.P. The District Forum has exercised jurisdiction not vested in it. However, it was pointed out before us that in the order in the Appeal it has been stated that the opposite parties shall pay the amount due under the policy. This does not at all mean that in the E.P. the complainant can make a fresh or additional plea stating that the policy was a Double Accident Policy and therefore he was entitled to double the policy amount. If any mistake has been done either by the complainant or by the Court, the proper remedy may be for review of the order and not making a fresh and additional plea in the E.P. It is, therefore, clear that the order passed by the District Forum in the E.P. suffers from illegality and material irregularity.

In this view of the matter, we set aside the order against which the Revision Petition has been filed. There will be no order as to costs in the Revision Petition. Order set aside.