IMPORTANT POINT
A claim for an amount as outstanding commission amount would not constitute a consumer dispute.

Palok Basu, President — This is the first bunch of cases regarding disputes concerning proposals or policies with Life Insurance Corporation of India (L.I.C.). For the sake of convenience the matters have been categorised into twelve groups and in each group several matters are up for decision. The groups formed are:

1. Unconcluded contract

2. Claims not decided for want of requirements.

3. Lapsed policies

4. Age

5. Double Accident benefit

6. Claim barred by clause 4-B of policy

7. Time barred

8. Mistake in issuing policy

9. Loan cases

10. Husband not holding policy wife not entitled.

11. With jurisdiction

12. Concealment of facts about health by proposer.

2. Sri M.H. Khan, Sri V. P. Sharma, Sri B. K. Upadhyaya, Sri Rakesh Kumar Gupta, Sri Anil Kumar Mishra and several other Counsel on behalf of the individual complainant in the appeals and revisions have been heard. Sri Arjun Bhargava, Sri V.S. Bisaria, Sri Vineet Srivastava, Sri B.L. Jaiswal, Sri K.S. Shukla, Sri Prabhakar Johri and Sri. R. A. Tewari and some other counsel have appeared for L.I.C. But for the cooperation of all those learned members of the Bar, it may not have been possible to decide the bunch cases. Each case has been taken up separately and decided after examining record. When necessary,

the record of District Forum has been summoned.

3. The learned members of the Bar have relied upon primarily decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and Hon’ble N.C.D.R.C. and in that process, the case law upto the decisions in Satya Deo Malviya v. L.I.C., Vijaylakhshmi Dhir v. L.I.C. and Smt. B. Jayamma v. Sr. B.M., L.I.C. have been taken due note of. For individual Cases, some decisions cited will be referred to while dealing with those cases.

4. Since the matters listed rule too many in number, this introductory page will be forming part of each matter, while discussion on merits of the case shall appear in the following Page/pages.

5. The L.I.C. has preferred this appeal against the judgement and order dated 21-5-1993 passed in Complaint case No. 252/1992 which was filed by Sri Yogesh Chandra Kabra only for recovery of Rs. 13,813,58 as outstanding commi-ssion amounts. This was objected to by the L.I.C. on several grounds including the assertion that the facts stated by the complainant were incorrect and further that such matters were not cognizable by the consumer court. The District Forum has decreed the claim.

6. Sri Arjun Bhargava has been heard. Sri Arun tandon for the complai-nant has also been heard. The entire record has been examined.

7. Sri Arjun Bhargava argued

that such matter could not have been entertained before the District Forum. Sri Arun tandon appearing for the complainant /respondent tried to bring the case within the mischief of the expre-ssion deficiency in service. It was purely accounting matter and as per the statement stands incorporated through the written statement, there was vital dispute on the allegations made by the complainant. Clearly, such matters are not cognizable by the District Forum.

8. The appeal succeeds and is allowed. The judgment and order of the District Forum are set aside. There will be no order as to cost.

Notwithstanding what has been stated above should the complainant be advised to have legal remedy elsewhere and such action should not be taken to be barred by this decision.

Appeal allowed.

*******