STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PUNJAB, CHANDIGARH.

Date of institution : 10.04.2024 Reserved on : 27.11.2025 Date of Decision : 15.12.2025

1. Life Insurance Corporation of India, through its Branch Manager LIC Lane Dhagu Road, Pathankot, Tehsil and District Pathankot and now through Chandigarh Branch, Divisional Office, Jeevan Prakash Building, 3^rd Floor, Sector 17-B, Chandigarh-160017 through its Branch Manager/Authorized Representative.

2. Life Insurance Corporation of India, through its Divisional Manager, Ranjit Avenue, Divisional Office, Amritsar and now through Chandigarh Branch, Divisional Office, Jeevan Prakash Building, 3^rd Floor, Sector 17-B, Chandigarh-160017 through its Branch Manager/Authorized Representative.

….Appellants/OPs/JDs Versus

1. Maninder Singh, son of Sh.Bhupinder Singh, Resident of Dhangu Road, Pathankot, Tehsil and District Pathankot.

….…Respondent No.1/Complainant/DH

2. Allahabad Bank, Dhangu Road, Pathankot through its Branch Manager.

….…Respondent No.2/Opposite Party No.3 First Appeal under Section 41 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against the order dated 11.01.2024 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Gurdaspur in EA No.04 of 2022.

Quorum:-

Hon’ble Mrs. Justice Daya Chaudhary, President Ms. Simarjot Kaur, Member Mr. Vishav Kant Garg, Member

1) Whether Reporters of the Newspapers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes/No

2) To be referred to the Reporters or not? Yes/No

3) Whether judgment should be reported in the Digest?

Yes/No Present:-

For the appellants : Sh.Sandeep Bhardwaj, Advocate For respondent No.1 : None For respondent No.1 : None SIMARJOT KAUR, MEMBER :

The Appellants/Opposite Parties have filed the present Appeal before this Commission to challenge the impugned order dated 11.01.2024 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Gurdaspur (in short, “the District Commission”), in EA No.04 of 2022 whereby the Execution Application is allowed.

2. It would be apposite to mention here that hereinafter the parties will be referred, as were arrayed before the District Commission.

3. Brief facts of the case are that the Complainant had filed Complaint before the District Commission which was partly allowed vide order dated 30.05.2013. The relevant part of the order is reproduced as under:

7. xxxxxxxx… Therefore, we are of the considered view that case of complainant is governed under previous circular dated 9.8.2010. Consequently, denial of genuine claim of the complainant cannot be said to be justified & lawful. Thus, the present complaint is partly accepted with direction to the opposite party to redeem the complainant’s policy No.473255445 and pay to him the surrender value alongwith upto date interest at the agreed rate alongwith Rs.10,000/- as litigation expenses within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. In case of failure the amount of litigation expenses will be payable with interest @ 9% P.A. from the date of filing complaint till payment.

Thereafter, an Execution Application was filed by the DH/Complainant for compliance of the order passed in the Complaint. Vide order dated 11.01.2024. The District Commission had issued the following directions to the JDs:-

6. As far as objection regarding delay raised by J.Ds./respondents No.1 and 2 regarding filing of execution application after delay of 9 years is concerned. Perusal of Section-11 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 shows that order of the Commission shall be enforced in the same manner is that of decree of Civil Courts in accordance with Order 21 of CPC and accordingly time period for filing of execution application under Civil Law is 12 years. As such execution application is within time and is very much maintainable. Now for compliance of order of depositing of Rs.35,000/- alongwith upto date interest to come up on 15.2.2024.

4. The Appellants/JDs have filed the present Appeal being aggrieved by the order dated 11.01.2024 in EA No.4 of 2022 by the District Commissi