IMPORTANT POINT
Question of law can be decided in an appropriate case where stakes are very high.

Though respondent is exparte but he can join the proceedings.

2. Present revision petition was filed in the year 2006. However, no copies of the pleadings were filed along with it.

3. On 18.11.2014, counsel for petitioner sought time to file copy of pleadings and as such, six weeks’ time was granted and matter was adjourned to 25.02.2015. Again on 25.02.2015, copies of pleadings were not filed and further time was sought. Thereafter, two weeks’ time was granted. Till date, copies of pleadings have not been filed.

4. Heard.

5. Respondent/Complainant filed a Consumer Complaint on the ground, that her husband was insured with the Petitioner/O.P. He died on 09.12.2000 in a cross firing between two groups of terrorist, during the insurance period. Thereafter, Respondent lodged a claim with the petitioner, which repudiated the claim on the ground that respondent was an antisocial element. Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the Petitioner, respondent filed Complaint claiming Rs.1 Lac with 12% interest.

5. Petitioner contested the consumer complaint.

6. District Forum, vide order dated 30.09.2005, allowed the complaint and directed the petitioner to pay to the respondent in all a sum of Rs.1,25,000/- along with interest @ 9% p.a. from 14.12.2004.

8. Being aggrieved, Petitioner filed First Appeal No.397 of 2005 before the State Commission, which vide its impugned order dated 12.05.2006, modified the order of the District Forum and directed the petitioner to pay Rs. 1 Lac within three weeks from receipt of the order failing which, respondent shall be entitled to interest at the rate of 12% from the date of the order.

9. Now, petitioner has filed this revision petition.

10. The life insured had died in the year 2000. His claim was repudiated on 17.3.2004. Thereafter, the Consumer Complaint was filed in the year 2004.

11. Now more than 15 years have lapsed since the life insured died. Moreover, paltry amount of about Rs.One Lakh, only is involved in this litigation. Even otherwise, there are concurrent finding of facts given by both the fora below. Under these circumstances, we are not inclined to entertain this petition in view of decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in Gurgaon Gramin Bank v. Khazani and another, IV (2012) CPJ 5 (SC): 2012 (4) CPR 1 (SC) where the Court observed;

“2. Number of litigations in our country is on the rise, for small and trivial matters, people and sometimes Central and State Governments and their instrumentalities Banks, nationalized or private, come to courts may be due to ego clash or to save the Officers’ skin. Judicial system is over-burdened, naturally causes delay in adjudication of disputes. Mediation centers opened in various parts of our country have, to some extent, eased the burden of the courts but we are still in the tunnel and the light is far away. On more than one occasion, this court has reminded the Central Government, State Governments and other instrumentalities as well as to the various banking institutions to take earnest efforts to resolve the disputes at their end. At times, some give and take attitude should be adopted or both will sink. Unless, serious questions of law of general importance arise for consideration or a question which affects large number of persons or the stakes are very high, Courts jurisdiction cannot be invoked for resolution of small and trivial matters. We are really disturbed by the manner in which those types of matters are being brought to courts even at the level of Supreme Court of India and this case falls in that category.”

The Apex Court further held;

“10. The Chief Manager stated in the affidavit that no bill was raised by the counsel for the bank for conducting the matter before the National Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission. We have not been told how much money has been spent by the bank officers for their to and fro journeys to the lawyers’ office, to the District Forum, State Forum, National Commission and to the Supreme Court. For a palt