Back
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
Hon’ble Mr. Justice V. Balakrishna Eradi, President;
Smt. A.S. Vijayakar, Member; Dr. A.K Ghosh, Member;
Mr. Y. Krishan, Member; Dr. Rais Ahmed, Member
L.I.C.—Petitioner
versus
CHATUR BEHARI LAL & ORS.—Respondents
Revision Petition No. 9 of 1989—Decided on 6.12.1989
For the Petitioner:Mr. Kailash Vasdev & Mr. M.J. Paul, Advocates.
For the Respondents:Mr. B.N. Sanghvi, Advocate.
The court prioritized the interest of justice and the prompt disposal of the suit, while leaving open the determination of whether a nominee under a Life Insurance Policy can be regarded as a Consumer.
Headnote:
Consumer Protection Act - Life Insurance - The court directed the Life Insurance Corporation of India to deposit the amount covered by the order of the State Commission as a fixed deposit for six months in a Nationalised Bank, pending a suit, and requested the Civil Judge to give priority to the suit's disposal. The court also left open the question of whether a nominee under a Life Insurance Policy can be regarded as a Consumer.
Fact of the Case:
The court directed the Life Insurance Corporation of India to deposit the amount covered by the order of the State Commission as a fixed deposit for six months in a Nationalised Bank in the name of the Presiding Officer (Civil Judge) of the Civil Court, Udaipur, pending a suit, and requested the Civil Judge to give priority to the suit's disposal.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the interest of justice would be best served by the directed deposit and prioritization of the suit's disposal, and set aside the orders passed by the State Commission and the District Forum.
Issues: The issues involved the deposit of the amount covered by the order of the State Commission, the prioritization of the suit's disposal, and the determination of whether a nominee under a Life Insurance Policy can be regarded as a Consumer.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was influenced by the interest of justice and the need for the suit's prompt disposal, leaving open the question of the nominee's status as a Consumer for future determination.
Final Decision: The orders passed by the State Commission and the District Forum were set aside, and the Revision Petition was disposed of with the directions contained in the court's order.
Mr. Justice V. Balakrishna Eradi, President — Having heard the Counsel appearing for the Petitioner and for the first respondent, we have come to the conclusion that the interest of justice will be best served by directing the Petitioner — Life Insurance Corporation of India — to deposit the amount covered by the order of the State Commission as a fixed deposit for six months in any Nationalised Bank in the name of the Presiding Officer (Civil Judge) of the Civil Court, Udaipur and deposit the fixed deposit receipt in the Civil Court, Udaipur to the credit of Suit No. 90 of 1988 (Depali Gupta v. Anil Kumar and Others) pending on the file of the Court. We direct that this should be done within a period of four weeks from today. We request the Civil Judge, Udaipur to give maximum priority to the disposal of this Suit as the questions involved are relatively simple and to dispose of the suit, if possible, within six months from this date. In case the said suit is not disposed within a period of six months, the Petitioner will take steps to have the fixed deposit renewed from time to time until the suit is finally disposed of by the said Court. We are sure that the Civil Judge will adjudicate upon all the questions arising in the above mentioned suit on the merits including the contentions raised by all the parties before it relating to the title to receive amount as well as the quantum of the amount payable by the Petitioner Corporation.
2. In view of what has been stated above, it has become unnecessary for us to go into the question whether a nominee under a Life Insurance Policy can be regarded as a Consumer in the light of the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act and the Life Insurance Act. The said question is left open for determination when it properly arises for adjudication in the future.
3. The orders passed by the State Commission and the District Forum will stand set aside and this Revision Petition will stand disposed of with the directions contained in this order.
Revision disposed.
––
