Life Insurance Corporation of India vs S.P. DUGGAL

BY this appeal, the Opp. Party No. 1 before the District Forum questions the legality and correctness of the order dated February 11, 1993 passed by the District Forum, Bathinda in Complaint No. 110 of 1992.

IN view of the short point involved, it is not necessary to re-count the facts in detail. Suffice it to state that the complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short the ''Act'' against the Opp. Parties alleging therein that the Branch Manager, Life INsurance Corporation of INdia, Sangrur vide his letter dated 4.5.1990 informed him that he had not deposited the premium for the periods 3/86, 9/87, 3/88 and 9/88 and that on 12.5.1989 the said Branch Manager had sent a cheque of Rs. 5,789.35 paise to him after deducting Rs. 831.75 paise wrongly on the plea that he had not deposited the instalments of premium fell due for the periods mentioned above. The case of the complainant was that he had already deposited the amounts of premium for the aforesaid periods with the Opp. Party No. 2 and that the latter be directed to pay the balance of Rs. 831.75 including interest wrongly deducted by it from the amount payable to him. On notice being issued, the Opp. Parties stoutly controverted the allegations of the complainant. It was alleged that in fact the complainant had been inadvertantly paid the excess amount of Rs. 401.75 and the Opp. Parties were entitled to recover that amount from him. The Opp. Parties had however, admitted having intimated to the complainant regarding the non-deposit of the amounts of premium due for the periods 3/86, 9/87, 3/88 and 9/88 but later on after scrutinising his accounts it was found that he had deposited the premiums of the aforesaid periods. According to the Opp. Parties, the complainant had been inadvertantly paid Rs. 1,000/- on 31.3.1979 and Rs. 1,000/-on 18.12.1984 as the survival benefits in terms of the policy after every five years and that after scrutinising his accounts it was found that the amount of Rs. 401.75 out of the amount of Rs. 5,789.35 had been paid in excess to him and the same was to be deducted from the said amount.

The District Forum, Bathinda accepted the contentions of the complainant and relying on the decisions of the National Commission in M/s. Anand Motor Agencies Pvt. Ltd. v. Sweta Kaura I (1991), C.PJ 341 (NC) and M/s. Larsen & Tourbo Ltd. v. M/s. Pophale Nursing Home and Anr., II (1992), CPJ, 366 (NC) granted relief to him while observing that the claim of the complainant to the extent of Rs. 724/- (Rs. 588/- + Rs. 36/- as interest + Rs. 100/- as costs) deserved to be allowed and accordingly directed the Opp. Parties to pay the said amount to him within one month from the date of the order. Being aggrieved, the Opp. Party-appellant has filed this appeal as aforesaid.

WHEN the case is called for hearing, neither the respondent nor his representative has appeared. We have heard the learned Counsel for the appellant and considered the record with requisite care. Mr. B J. Singh, the learned Counsel for the appellant has strenuously urged that the District Forum has not applied its mind properly while granting relief to the complainant and that in fact the complainant was inadvertantly paid the amount of Rs. 2,000/- as the survival benefit at the time of settlement of his claim and later on it was found that an amount of Rs. 401.75 was paid in excess to him and the same was accordingly deducted from his amount of Rs. 5,789/- at the time of settlement of maturity claim. The learned Counsel has urged that the respondent could not be allowed to take unfair advantage of the mistake committed by the Corporation. After hearing the learned Counsel for the appellant at length, we have good reasons to feel that the respondent had tried to take unfair advantage of the mistake of the Corporation and he tried to make use of Consumer Disputes Redressal Machinery to extract undue amount from the appellant. We have perused the order of the District Forum and find that the Forum whilst relying on the principle laid down in the decisions of the National Commission in case M/s. Anand Motor Agencies Pvt. Ltd. and M/s. Larsen & Tourbo Ltd. (supra), rejected the plea of the appellant and granted relief as claimed by the respondent. In case M/s. Anand Motor Agencies Pvt. Ltd. (supra), it is held that there is no provision under the Act for filing of any memorandm of Cross Objecton in an appeal. In case M/s. Larsen & Tourbo Ltd. (supra), the State Commission had ordered the dealer to pay Rs. 6,000/- to the complainant as costs of the picture tube for getting the T. V. Set repaired at some other workshop as he (complainant) had lost faith in the dealer. The National Commission while up-setting the order of the State Commission held that the complainant did not approach the Forum with clean hands and accordingly up-set the order passed by the State Commission and dismissed the complaint.

THE above said cases are therefore, distinguishable and the ratio thereof wll not apply to the present case. We are unable to even remotely infer therefrom that if the Corporation inadvertantly pays the amount in excess to the complainant and the same cannot be deducted by it. Perhaps in this context, it is apt to recall the hollowed dictum of Lord Helsbary in "Quin v. Leatham" 1901 Appeal Cases 491thata decision is only an atuhroity for what it actually decides and what is relevant is the ratio thereof and not evey passing observation therein. Once the aforesaid decisions are explained and distinguished and consequently out of the way, the main plank of the respondent''s case would crumble. The point for consideration in this case is simple. The Corporation had deducted the amount which was erroneously paid in excess to the respondent at the time of settlement of his final claim which according to the appellant is a matter which is beyond the scope of enquiry before the District Forum. Be that as it may, the contention of the learned Counsel for the appellant has necessarily to be upheld that the Corporation was entitled to deduct the amount which was paid in excess to the respondent. In the light of the above conclusion arrived at by us, we accept the appeal and set aside the order of the District Forum. In the circumstances, we make no order as to costs. Appeal allowed.