Financial stringency cannot be a valid ground for non-payment under an insurance scheme, and the jurisdiction of the District Forum cannot be challenged if the objection was not raised before the District Forum.

Mr. Justice A. Venkatarami Reddy, President — The complainant is the wife of one Yousuff, B.Ed., Assistant Teacher in Municipal Upper Primary School under Narsapur Municipality. He contributed at the rate of Rs. 40.00 per month towards A.P. Employees Group Insurance Scheme from the year 1984. He died in harness on 14.11.1986. According to the terms of the scheme, the amount of Rs. 40,600/is due and payable to the complainant, that is, the wife of the deceased. Although he died on 14-111986, the Opposite Party has not settled the claim even after a period of seven (7) years, thereby the complainant was compelled to file a C.D.No. 323 of 1991 in the District Forum, West Godavari at Eluru. In the complaint, it was mentioned that the District Local Fund Officer, Eluru also had given a clear certificate to release all the insurance amount to the complaint.

2. In the counter, it was admitted that the complainant was entitled to the payment of Rs. 40,600/in accordance with the terms of A.P. Employees Group Insurance Scheme? It was also stated that the Commissioner of Narsapur Municipality issued proceedings on 23.9.1988 that sanction is accorded for payment of lumpsum benefit of Rs. 40,600 / to the complainant. But it was stated that the Municipality addressed letters to the Audit Department to release the funds, but the funds are not released and that on account of the financial stringency and paucity of funds, the opposite party is unable to pay the amount to the complainant.

3. On the basis of the aforesaid averments and contentions, the District Forum found that the paucity of funds cannot be a ground for not paying amount due to the complainant under the A.P. Employees Group Insurance Scheme. It also found, having regard to the proceedings of the Commissioner, the opposite party is bound to pay the amount. It accordingly directed the payment of Rs. 40,600 /-with interest at 12% and awarded costs of Rs. 200/-.

4. In this appeal, the only contention raised is that the Audit Officer, Local Funds has not released the amounts. If that is so, it is for the opposite party to take appropriate steps for getting release of the funds and the complainant cannot be deprived of the payment on that ground. It is for the opposite party to arrange the payment in accordance with the proceedings of the Commissioner. We, therefore, see no substance in this contention. It is also contended that the complainant is not a consumer and that, therefore, the District Forum has no jurisdiction. But this objection was not taken before the District Forum. We are, therefore, not inclined to permit him to raise this objection at this stage.

5. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. One month time is granted from today for payment of the amount due under the orders of the District Forum. No costs.

Appeal dismissed.