NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD. vs ANITA GOYAL

This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner against the order dated 30-06-2010 passed by the Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, UT Chandigarh (in short, ''the State Commission'') in Appeal No. 1456 of 2004 - Anita Goyal Vs. The New India Assurance Co. Ltd., by which while allowing appeal, order of District Forum was set aside.

Brief facts of the case are that Complainant/respondent''s husband had taken Janta Personal Accident Policy for Rs. 10 lakhs from opposite party/petitioner on 20-03-1998 and complainant was appointed as nominee. On 01-05-2002 complainant''s husband Naresh Kumar left his factory but did not return back and on search on 02-05-2002 his scooter was found stuck partly in loamy mud on the right bank of the canal. Report was lodged with police and on 04.05.2002 Naresh Kumar''s dead body was found in the canal. Complainant lodged claim with opposite party which was repudiated on the ground that Naresh Kumar committed suicide and was not covered under the policy. Alleging deficiency on the part of opposite party complainant filed complaint before District Forum. Opposite party resisted complaint on issuance of policy but submitted that insured committed suicide and claim was rightly repudiated and prayed for dismissal of complaint. Learned District Forum after hearing both the parties observed that matter may be adjudicated by Civil Court. Appeal filed by the complainant was allowed by learned State

Commission vide impugned order in which it was observed that District Forum was not correct in not deciding complaint on merits and further allowed complaint and directed opposite party to pay Rs. 10 lakhs with 7.5% p.a. interest against which this revision petition has been filed.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused record.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that even if State Commission was of the view that complaint should have been decided by District Forum on merits learned State Commission while accepting appeal should have remanded matter to District Forum for deciding complaint on merits and has committed error in allowing complaint on merits, hence revision petition be allowed and impugned order be set aside to this extent and matter may be remanded back to District Forum for deciding complaint on merits. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that order passed by learned State Commission is in accordance with law, hence revision petition be dismissed.

It is not disputed that insured Naresh Kumar obtained insurance policy from opposite party and insured died in the canal. The core question to be decided was whether death was accidental or death was suicidal.

Learned District Forum after elaborate discussion observed that case is of complicated nature which requires detailed evidence and it is difficult for District Forum to arrive at definite conclusion so directed complainant to approach Civil Court. Learned State Commission in Para 26 of the impugned order observed that District Forum was not correct in not deciding complaint on merits and in Para 27 allowed complaint on merits in light of discussions made in above paras.

It is admitted case that District Forum has not decided complaint on merits and on account of complicated nature of the case District Forum directed complaint to approach Civil Court. Once Learned State Commission came to the conclusion that District Forum should have decided complaint on merits, learned State Commission should have remanded the matter to District Forum for deciding complaint on merits instead of deciding complaint on merits itself.

Learned counsel for the respondent has placed reliance on judgment of this Commission in II (2003) CPJ 170 (NC) - Vijay Shankar Vs. Mandeep Singh & Ors., in which complaint was dismissed by District Forum as it was beyond pecuniary jurisdiction and appeal by State Commission was dismissed in limine and this Commission observed that in case State Commission was of the view that District Forum had no pecuniary jurisdiction than in the interest of justice it certainly had and should have taken steps to redress the grievance of the complainant and could have for itself called for record of the complaint and treated the same as it was filed before it. This citation is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case because in the case in hand as matter was not decided on merits by District Forum and parties were directed to approach Civil Court, State Commission could not have decided complaint on merits which amounted to deprivation of opportunity to the parties of getting view of the trial court (District Forum).

In the light of aforesaid discussion impugned order is liable to set aside and matter is to be remanded back to learned District Forum for deciding complaint on merits on the basis of evidence available on record.

Consequently, revision petition filed by the petitioner is allowed and order dated 30-06-2010 passed by learned State Commission in First Appeal No. 1456 of 2004 - Anita Goyal Vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. is partly set aside and order allowing complaint is set aside and matter is remanded back to learned District Forum to decide complaint on merits after giving an opportunity of being heard to the parties. Learned District Forum need not be persuaded by any observations made by learned State Commission in the impugned order.

Parties are directed to appear before District Forum on 05.10.2015.