NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. vs SURINDER KAUR

THIS revision petition has been filed by the petitioner against the order dated 29 -11 -2012 passed by State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab (in short, ''the State Commission '') in Appeal No. 1243/2008 - Surinder Kaur Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd., by which while allowing appeal, order of District Forum was set aside and complaint was allowed.

BRIEF facts of the case are that complainant/respondent ''s husband Avtar Singh obtained Janta Personal Accident Insurance Policy for Rs. 5 lakhs on 06.04.1997 from opposite party/petitioner for a period from 08.04.1997 to 07.04.2009. On 22.07.2006 Avtar Singh, while driving scooter, collided with motor cycle and ultimately died. Intimation of death was given to opposite party on 18.10.2006. Opposite party sought explanation from the complainant for not lodging FIR and getting post -mortem report. Complainant replied to the letter but opposite party repudiated claim. Alleging deficiency on the part of the opposite party, complainant filed complaint before District Forum. Opposite party resisted complaint and submitted that claim was rightly repudiated as death of Avtar Singh was not covered under the policy and prayed for dismissal of complaint. Learned District Forum after hearing both the parties observed that case needs proper investigation and inquiry and detailed recording of evidence and directed complainant to approach Civil Court. Appeal filed by the complainant was allowed by learned State Commission vide impugned order and directed opposite party to pay Rs. 5 lakhs along with 6% p.a. interest, against which this revision petition has been filed.

HEARD learned counsel for the parties finally at admission stage and perused record. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that learned District Forum has not decided complaint on merits and directed complaint to approach Civil Court, even then learned State Commission instead of remanding back matter for disposal to District Forum, decided complaint on merits which is contrary to law, hence revision petition be allowed and impugned order be set aside and matter may be remanded back to District Forum to decide it on merits. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent submitted that as matter was five years old, learned State Commission rightly decided it on merits, which does not call for any interference, hence revision petition be dismissed.

PERUSAL of District Forum ''s order reveals that District Forum refrained from deciding complaint on merits and observed that case needs proper investigation and inquiry and detailed recording of evidence and in such circumstances directed complainant to approach to Civil Court. Learned State Commission could not have decided appeal on merits and while accepting appeal learned State Commission should have remanded matter back to District Forum for deciding it on merits as Consumer Forum has sufficient material for final decision of complaint. Until and unless matter is decided by District Forum on merits, there was no occasion for State Commission to decide complaint on merits. Learned counsel for the respondent submitted that as matter was five years old, learned State Commission rightly decided complaint on merits. This argument is devoid of force because learned State Commission ought not to have decided complaint on merits without order of District Forum on merits.

IN the light of above discussion, revision petition is to be allowed and impugned order is to be set aside.

CONSEQUENT LY , revision petition filed by the petitioner is allowed and impugned order dated 29 -11 -2012 passed by learned State Commission in First Appeal No. 1243/2008 - Surinder KaurVs. National Insurance Co. Ltd. is partly set aside and matter is remanded back to learned District Forum to decide it on merits on the basis of material available on record. Order of District Forum directing complainant to approach to civil court is set aside.

PARTIES are directed to appear before District Forum on 24.11.2014.