High CourtsSingle Bench(2022) 05 OHC CK 0130

Hadubandhu Nayak vs Manager, LIC Of India, BBSR And Others

Orissa High Court · Decided on 20 May 2022

HON’BLE JUDGES
Arindam Sinha, J
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
Writ Petition (C) No. 10649 Of 2022

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

7 paragraphs · 352 words

I.A. No.5528 of 2022

1.

Mr. Nayak, learned advocate appears on behalf of petitioner and submits, his client has impugned order dated 5th May, 2018 as well as order dated 13th September, 2021 confirming the earlier order in first appeal. He submits, the Consumer District Forum did not appreciate his client’s case.

2.

He submits, his client had taken a policy, which required monthly installment premium of Rs.27.71 to be paid for maturity value at Rs.10,000/- on 9th December, 1996. During subsistence of the policy, petitioner suffered vigilance proceeding against him. Inter alia, the policy document was seized and petitioner was suspended from service. Petitioner could not, at that time, pay the premium. After maturity date of the policy, petitioner stood acquitted. He resumed paying the premium and paid the entire aggregate policy period premium, lastly in December, 1997. This cannot be disputed. The insurance company, however, calculated maturity value of the policy on premium receipt during policy period and only paid Rs.18,039/- and Rs.364/- as panel interest. He submits, his client was entitled to more as the period, in which installment premium could not be paid, was by reason of the vigilance case. Petitioner stood acquitted. He prays for direction on issuance of notice and interim protection.

3.

This Bench, following caution to the High Courts by order in Cicily Kallarackal v. Vehicle Factory, reported in (2012) 8 SCC 524 had dismissed writ petitions directed against orders made under the Consumer Disputes Act. However, the Supreme Court by judgment dated 13th May, 2022 in Civil Appeal no.3072 of 2022 (Ibrat Faizan v. Omaxe Buildhome Pvt. Ltd.) has now declared, it cannot be said that a writ petition under article 227 of the Constitution of India before the concerned High Court against order passed by the National Commission in an appeal under section 58(1)(a)(iii) of Consumer Disputes Act, 2019 is not maintainable.

4.

In the circumstances, issue notice along with this order on opposite party no.1 by registered/speed post with AD. Petitioner will put in requisites.

5.

List on 23rd June, 2022. The interim application will be considered on returnable date..

.............................................