STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PUNJAB, CHANDIGARH.

Date of institution : 02.06.2025 Reserved On : 16.03.2026 Date of decision : 21.04.2026 Manish Kaur (wrongly mentioned as Manisha Kaur) wife of Lakhwinder Singh son of Bahal Singh, Resident of House No.11283/9, Guru Nanak Dev Nagar, Ludhiana, District Ludhiana.

….Appellant/Complainant Versus

1. Bharti Axa Life Insurance Company Ltd., having its Registered Office Unit No.1904, 19th Floor, Parinee Crescenzo G Block, Bandra Kurla Complex, BKC Road, Behind MCA Ground, Bandra East Mumbai-400051, Maharashtra through its Managing Director.

2. Bharti Axa Life Insurance Company Ltd., above Vijay Bank, Mall Road, near Aggarsain Chowk, Ferozepur City, through its Branch Manager-152002.

….Respondents/Opposite Parties First Appeal under Section 41 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against the order dated 01.04.2025 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ferozepur.

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 Appellant : Mr. P.K. Bansal, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. Sanjeev Goyal, Advocate JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY, PRESIDENT Appellant/Complainant Manish Kaur has filed the present Appeal under Section 41 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 being aggrieved by the order dated 01.04.2025 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ferozepur (in short, “the District Commission”), whereby the Complaint filed by her against the Respondents/Opposite Parties (OPs) had been dismissed.

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

3. Briefly, the facts of the case, which are necessary for disposal of the present Appeal are that the Appellant/Complainant filed the Complaint before the District Commission with the following prayer: i) The OPs be directed to pay the claim amount of ₹20 lac along with interest @ 18% per annum from the date of filing of the claim till realization;

ii) To pay compensation of ₹1 lac for causing mental agony and harassment to the Complainant;

iii) To pay ₹22,000/- towards litigation expenses.

4. Upon issuance of notice in the said Complaint to the OPs, they had appeared before the District Commission through Counsel and filed the written reply, wherein certain preliminary objections were raised. All other averments as made in the Complaint were controverted. It was prayed that the Complaint be dismissed.

5. By considering the contents of the Complaint and reply thereof filed by the OPs and also the oral arguments raised from both the sides, the Complaint was dismissed by the District Commission vide impugned order dated 01.04.2025. The relevant portion of said order as mentioned in Para-12 is reproduced as under:

“12. Therefore, as a sequel of above said facts, circumstances and discussion, the Commission is of considered opinion that the present Complaint is hereby dismissed accordingly and no order as to costs. The Complaint could not be decided within the stipulated period due to heavy pendency of cases and incomplete of quorum. A copy of this order be communicated to the parties concerned free of costs.

File be consigned to the record room.”

6. Said order dated 01.04.2025 passed by the District Commission has been challenged by the Appellant/Complainant by way of filing the present Appeal by raising a number of arguments.

7. Mr. P.K. Bansal, learned Counsel for the Appellant/Complainant has submitted that the Respondents/OPs had not led any evidence to prove that the deceased life assured (DLA) had also taken other Insurance Policies. In absence of any such evidence to prove, the allegations of the OPs should not have been accepted and the Complaint filed by the C