Back
KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
Hon’ble Mr. Justice L. Manoharan, President &
Prof. K. Madhuri Latha, Member
SMT. RAJALAKSHMI SASI & ANR.—Petitioners
versus
THE BRANCH MANAGER,
ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. & ANR.—Opp. Parties
I.A. No. 620 of 1999 in O.P. No. 34 of 1998—Decided on 4.11.1999
Headnote:Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Sections 12 and 17 - Petition for impleading Legal Representatives of deceased- 2nd complainant - Since amount claimed under policy of insurance was in dispute to be adjudicated, provisions of Section 214 of Indian Succession Act were not attracted for LRs to obtain succession certificate - Right to sue survived to L.Rs. - They were entitled to be impleaded.
Result: Petition allowed.
IMPORTANT POINT
Where cause of action survives to IRs after death of complainant, such IRs are entitled to be brought on record to prosecute consumer complaint.
Mr. Justice L. Manoharan, President—This petition is for impleading the legal representatives of the deceased second complainant who died pending complaint. To this petition the opposite parties have filed objection. The main objection taken up by the opposite party is that as per Section 214, Indian Succession Act, Succession Certificate is necessary to be produced before impleading the legal representatives of the deceased. The other objection is, the cause of action would not survive.
2. The learned Counsel for the petitioner in IA submitted that since the amount which the complainants are entitled to is yet to be adjudicated; the same being not a liquidated or, ascertained amount, the sum cannot be treated as a debt within the meaning of Section 214 of Indian Succession Act, 1925. Reliance was made by the learned Counsel for the petitioner on the decision in 1998 (2) KLT 912, Resilikutty Chacko v. State of Kerala, to maintain that a debt has to be an obligation to pay an ascertained sum of money. On the other hand the learned Counsel for the counter-petitioner sought to maintain that the policy amount is ascertained, the same is debt. There is dispute as to the amount to which the complainant is entitled to or eligible; whereas the opposite parties would maintain, the complainant is entitled to only an amount of six lakhs, the complainant would maintain that they are entitled to ten lakhs. That being the nature of the contest, it certainly is a matter for adjudication as to what is the actual amount to which the complainant is entitled to. When the position is so, applying the principle laid down to ‘debt’ in Resilikutty Chacko v. State of Kerala (supra), the argument of the learned Counsel for the counter-petitioner/opposite party cannot be accepted.
3. As to the second point raised by the opposite party since the relationship of the parties is based on a contract, it has to be held, that the right to sue would survive. Therefore, the petition has to be allowed; we do so. The petitioner will incorporate the names of the legal representatives in the complaint and then will be posted for additional version, if any to 11.11.1999.
Petition allowed.
–––
