ORDER

1.       The present Revision Petition (RP) has been filed by the Petitioner against Respondents as detailed above, under section 21 (b) of Consumer Protection Act 1986, against the order dated 22.01.2020 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, U.T.Chandigarh (hereinafter referred to as the ‘State Commission’), in First Appeal (FA) No. 05 of 2020 in which order dated 15.11.2019 of District Consumer Disputes Redressal  Forum-I,  U.T. Chandigarh (hereinafter referred to as District Forum) in Consumer Complaint (CC) no 580 of 2018 was challenged, inter alia praying for setting aside the order of the State Commission and District Forum.

2.       While the Revision Petitioner (hereinafter also referred to as Opposite Party) was Appellant and the Respondents (hereinafter also referred to as Complainants) were Respondents in the said FA 05 of 2020 before the State Commission, the Revision Petitioner was Respondent No.1 and Respondent herein No.1 and 2 were Complainant nos. 1 & 2 before the District Forum in the CC no 580  of 2018.  Respondent No.3 herein was Opposite Party No.2 in the CC.  For the sake of convenience, hereinafter the parties will also be referred to as they were arrayed in the CC before the District Forum.         Notice was issued to the Respondent on 29.06.2020.  Parties filed Written Arguments/Synopsis on 28.12.2021 ( Petitioner ) and 10.01.2022 ( Respondent No.1 and 2) respectively.

3.       Brief facts of the case, as emerged from the RP, Order of the State Commission, Order of the District Forum and other case records are that the    husband of the respondent no.1, Late Sh. Amardeep Singh, had taken three LIC Policies bearing no. 161564715, 165952234 and 165952235 before the marriage with respondent no.1. In the said policies the respondent no.3 was nominated as nominee to receive the amount in the event of his death. That after marriage the said nomination was not changed and unfortunately the husband of the respondent no.1 died on 04.01.2018. It is alleged by the Complainants in the Complaint that after the death of her husband she came to know about the said nomination of respondent no.3 as a nominee in the said polices, therefore the respondent no.1 wrote a letter dated 06.03.2018 to the petitioner, whereby she had requested not to disburse the sum assured in favour of the nominee i.e. respondent no.3 as respondent no.1 and 2 are the class I legal heirs of the deceased Amardeep Singh, being the wife and minor child, but the petitioner despite the said letter dated 06.03.2018 had disbursed the amount to the respondent no.3.

4.       Vide Order dated 15.11.2019 in the CC no. 580 of 2018 the District Forum has allowed the complaint filed by Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 herein wherein Petitioner herein and Respondent No. 3 herein were arrayed as Respondent No.1 and 2.  Opposite Parties were directed to :

(i)   Refund the amount of Rs.5,03,060/- each to complainant nos. 1 & 2 ( i.e. 1/3^rd share each of the total disbursed amount of Rs.15,09,180/-) along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of disbursal i.e. 9.5.2018 till realization.

(ii)   To pay an amount of Rs.20,000/- to the complainants as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment to them.

(iii)  To pay Rs.10,000/- to the complainants as costs of litigation.

5.       Aggrieved by the said Order dated 15.11.2019 of District Forum, Petitioner appealed in State Commission and the State Commission vide order dated 22.01.2020 in FA No. 05  of  2020 has dismissed the Appeal in accordance with detailed order in FA No. 03 of 2020 which was filed by Respondent no.3 herein and in which Petitioner herein was the Respondent No.3.  Appeal No. 03 of 2020 was also dismissed by the State Commission.  Hence the Petitioner herein is before this Commission in Revision Petition.  Respondent No.3 herein had not challenged the said order of the State Commission. 

6.       Petitioner has challenged the said Order dated 22.01.2020 of the State Commission m