AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
This revision petition has been filed under section 21(b) of the Act 1986 in challenge to the Order dated 27.08.2012 of the State Commission in appeal no. 761 of 2011 arising out of the Order dated 27.07.2011 of the District Commission in complaint no. 543 of 2009.
We have heard the learned counsel for the insurance co. (the petitioner herein) and the learned counsel for the complainants (the respondents herein), and have also perused the record including inter alia the Order dated 27.07.2011 of the District Commission, the impugned Order dated 27.08.2012 of the State Commission and the petition.
The matter relates to an insurance claim on the death of the insured. The District Commission had allowed the complaint and directed the insurance co. to pay the assured sum of Rs.3,60,000/- to the complainants being the legal heirs of the deceased insured within one month failing which the said sum will carry interest @ 12% per annum. The State Commission vide its Order dated 27.08.2012 had dismissed the appeal and confirmed the Order of the District Commission. As such this petition has been filed apropos concurrent findings of the two fora below.
At the very outset, our attention has been drawn by learned counsel for the complainants to a letter dated 15.10.2016 sent by the complainant no. 1 (the respondent no. 1 herein) through counsel Mr. Tom Joseph, advocate, under the signatures of both the complainant no.1 and the counsel. The relevant contents of the said letter are reproduced below:
This Hon’ble Commission was pleased to issue a notice showing that the above referred has been posted for admission hearing. Regarding the matter, I would like to submit that the Revision petitioner / opposite parties had paid the decree amount in the complaint long back and consequently the execution petition filed before the District Forum was disposed by finding the claim satisfied. Hence the above referred revision petition is in fructuous.
Therefore it is humbly prayed to dismiss the above numbered revision petition.”
Learned counsel for the complainants submits that the said letter was also taken note of by this Commission while recording its daily Order dated 27.03.2017 (“Received letter from Respondent No. 1 intimating that revision petition has become infructuous.”). The submission is that, for whatever reasons, this letter has been left unaddressed till date, and may now be addressed suitably first.
Learned counsel for the complainants argues that there remains scarcely anything substantial or meaningful to be adjudicated further in this matter when there are two concurrent findings recorded against the insurance co. and the decree itself has been satisfied long back and the execution proceedings before the District Commission also stand disposed of by finding the claim to be satisfied. The submission is that for all intents and purposes the petition has lost its legal sheen and purpose both, and has thus been more or less rendered redundant and deserves to be dismissed as such.
5 Learned counsel for the insurance co. does not dispute the said letter or its contents. He however submits that if this petition is to be dismissed in these noticeable facts and circumstances of the case, the issues involved in the petition may be kept open and this decision may not be treated as a precedent.
We may first observe that ‘revision’ is (ordinarily) maintainable before this Commission even after the Order made by the State Commission has been complied with, and may not be necessarily dismissed on the (sole) ground that the lower forum’s Order has since been satisfied.
In the instant case however it is conspicuously noteworthy that the insured died way back in 2009, and we are now in 2022; concurrent findings have been returned by the two fora below; and the amount involved is comparatively not very exorbitant.
Therefore, having regard to the above submissions made by the learned counsel for the two sides, and having regard to its conspicuous and peculiar facts and circumstances, the revision petition is dismissed with the explicit remark that the issues involved are kept open and the decision in this case shall not be treated as a precedent.
The Registry is requested to send a copy each of this Order to the parties in the petition and to their learned counsel immediately. The stenographer is also requested to upload this Order on the website of this Commission immediately.