Back
2017 Supreme(HP) 1249
HIMACHAL PRADESH STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
Justice P.S. Rana ®, President, Mr. Vijay Pal Khachi, Member, Ms. Meena Verma, Member.
Parveen Kumar - Appellant
Versus
Anil Kumar Parmar - Respondent
First Appeal No. 85 of 2017
Decided On : 31-08-2017
Mr. Ravi Shankar Sood, Advocate, for the Appellant; Mr. Sandeep Chauhan, Advocate vice Mr. Saurav Rattan, Advocate, for the Respondent No. 1; Mr. Manohar Lal Sharma, Advocate, for the Respondent No. 2
Proper service of notice is essential for the validity of court proceedings.
Headnote:
Consumer Protection Act - Life Insurance Policy - Section 12, Regulation 10(5) of Consumer Protection Regulations 2005 - The court found that the appellant was not properly served by the learned District Forum, and as a result, the order of the District Forum was set aside and the complaint was remanded back for further proceedings.
Fact of the Case:
The complainant filed a consumer complaint against SBI Life Insurance Co. Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. alleging non-release of the maturity amount and interest, causing mental tension. The opposite party contended that the complainant was not a consumer and the investment was for commercial purpose. The District Forum allowed the complaint against the second opposite party and ordered compensation. The second opposite party appealed against this order.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the appellant was not properly served by the learned District Forum, leading to the setting aside of the District Forum's order and remanding the complaint for further proceedings.
Issues: Proper service of notice to the appellant by the learned District Forum.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the appellant was not properly served by the learned District Forum, and as a result, the order of the District Forum was set aside and the complaint was remanded back for further proceedings.
Final Decision: The appeal was disposed of, and the order of the District Forum was set aside. The complaint was remanded back to the District Forum for further proceedings.
ORDER
P.S. Rana (R), President. - Present appeal is filed against order dated 16.01.2016 passed by Learned District Forum in consumer complaint No. 19/2013 title Anil Kumar Parmar vs. SBI Life Insurance Co. Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.
Brief facts of Case:
2. Complainant Parveen Kumar filed consumer complaint under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act 1986 against opposite parties pleaded therein that complainant is serving as senior clerk in the office CMO Sirmaur H.P. It is pleaded that opposite party No. 2 agent of opposite party No. 1 approached complainant in the month of April 2008 to purchase life insurance policy. It is further pleaded that complainant paid Rs. 50000/-(Fifty thousand) as one time paid plan for a period of three years. It is further pleaded that complainant requested opposite parties to release the amount of Rs. 50000/- (Fifty thousand) alongwith maturity amount and interest but opposite parties did not release the amount and caused mental tension to the complainant. Complainant sought relief of Rs. 50000/- (Fifty thousand) alongwith interest. In addition complainant also sought relief of damages to the tune of Rs. 20000/- (Twenty thousand).
3. Per contra version filed on behalf of opposite party No. 1 pleaded therein that benefits payable under the policy are always subject to terms and conditions of insurance policy. It is pleaded that learned District Forum has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain and decide complaint. It is further pleaded that complainant is not consumer. It is further pleaded that investment made by complainant was for gaining profit and it was invested for commercial purpose. It is further pleaded that both the parties are bound by terms and conditions of policy. It is further pleaded that complainant has no cause of action against opposite party No. 1. It is further pleaded that complainant had option to apply for cancellation of policy within free look period of 15 days after receipt of policy. It is further pleaded that complainant did not opt for free look period option and continued the policy since 2008. It is further pleaded that complainant had paid only initial premium to the tune of Rs. 50000/- (Fifty thousand) under policy and it is further pleaded that policy lapsed due to non-payment of premium after 30.04.2009. It is further pleaded that complainant did not pay the premium within grace period of thirty days. It is further pleaded that if the premium is not paid within grace period then policy automatically lapsed. It is further pleaded that complainant has no cause of action to file the complaint. Prayer for dismissal of complaint sought.
4. Opposite party No. 2 was proceeded ex-parte by learned District Forum. Learned District Forum allowed complaint against opposite party No. 2 i.e. Parveen Kumar Sharma and ordered opposite party No. 2 to pay compensation to the tune of Rs. 45000/- (Forty five thousand) to the complainant within 45 days from the date of receipt of copy of order. Learned District Forum further ordered that failing which opposite party No. 2 would also pay interest @9% per annum.
5. Feeling aggrieved against order passed by Learned District Forum opposite party No. 2 i.e. Parveen Kumar Sharma filed present appeal before State Commission.
6. We have heard learned advocates appearing on behalf of parties and we have also perused entire record carefully.
7. Following points arises for determination in present appeal.
1. Whether appellant was properly served before learned District Forum in accordance with law?
2. Final order.
Findings upon point No. 1 with reasons:
8. Complainant Shri Anil Kumar filed affidavit in evidence. There is recital in the affidavit that opposite party No. 2 is agent of opposite party No. 1. There is further recital in the affidavit that opposite party No. 2 approached complainant for purchase of life insurance policy. There is further recital in the affidavit that deponent paid Rs. 50000/- (Fifty thousand) as per one time paid plan f
