AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Dr. Inder Jit Singh, Presiding Member
The present Revision Petition (RP) has been filed by the Petitioners against the Respondent, as detailed above, under section 58 (1) ( b) of the Consumer Protection 2019, against the order dated 22.03.2021 of State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Uttar Pradesh ( hereinafter referred to as the ‘State Commission’) in First Appeal ( FA) No. 621 of 2010.
Petitioners have challenged the said order dated 22.03.2021 of the State Commission on the following grounds:
a. Before passing of the order dated 22.06.2017, which is said to have been passed against dead person, application for substitution of LR was duly moved by the LR himself on 18.04.2017 thereby apprised the death of the respondent.
b. Due steps were already taken even before order dated 22.06.2017 to substitute LR of respondent and said application was to be decided by the State Commission first as per the directions dated 28.03.2018 and no further steps were required to be taken by the petitioners since application for substitution was already on record.
c. Order dated 28.03.2018 does not contain any directions for the petitioner to take any steps for substitution.
d. Substitution of LR is governed by Order 22 Rule 11 CPC and since sole surviving respondent had died and LR of respondent has already placed application for substitution, State Commission ought to have allowed the application.
e. It was duty of the respondent to apprise the State Commission regarding the death of respondent since counsel for the respondent was present before the State Commission on 22.03.2021 and 22.06.2017.
f. The requirement of application was fulfilled by the LR of respondent, State Commission ought to have made the Legal representative of the respondent, a party to the appeal.
g. Arguments on appeal were heard by State Commission on 26.04.2017 i.e. subsequent to filing of application on 18.04.2017 by Inder Pal Singh but State Commission overlooked the application and decided the appeal on merits.
h. Despite death of respondent, right to sue still survives under Order 22 Rue 1 CPC as present case was originally filed for obtaining benefits under the life insurance policy wherein respondent was the nominee.
i. Due to such abatement of appeal filed by Petitioner, order dated 22.06.2017 also becomes nullified and view of this order of the District Forum dated 04.03.2010 has come into force and said order of the District Forum is against the settled law.
j. No response was given by the life assured for revival of policy and revival of insurance policy is pure discretion of the insurance company and life assured cannot seek revival of lapsed policy as a matter of right and policy revival would not automatically follow without fulfillment of conditions. In the present case, no revival letter was sent to life assured and therefore it is clear that policy was not revived and was in lapse mode at the time of death of LA.
k. Grant of compensation and interest tantamounts to grant of double compensation under the Act as awarded by District Forum as held by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Bangalore Development Authority Vs. Syndicate Bank, Civil Appeal No. 5462 of 2002 and also by this Commission in Laxmi Vilas Bank Ltd. & Anr. Vs. P.R. Krishnan and Anr. I (1995) CPJ 43 1( NC).
Heard counsel for both sides. In this case, vide order dated 22.03.2021, in Appeal No. 621 of 2010, the State Commission stated that Appeal is abated as despite order of this Commission ( NCDRC) dated 28.03.2018, legal heirs of deceased were not replaced, while the respondent died on 08.03.2017. The Petitioner has drawn our attention to order dated 28.03.2018 passed by this Commission, as per which, RP was allowed, impugned order of the State Commission was set aside and matter was remanded back to the State Commission to decide the appeal on merits after disposal of application of Inder Pal Singh dated 18.04.2017 for substitution in place of late complainant. Petitioner has also drawn our attention to the application dated 18.04.2017 filed by them before the State Commission for substitution of legal heirs. Counsel for the respondent has drawn our attention to orders dated 27.04.2018, 28.09.2018 and 18.12.2020 of the State Commission. Perusal of the order dated 27.04.2018 shows that application for substitution of legal heirs dated 18.04.2017 was listed for hearing on 05.07.2018. Perhaps, the case did not come up for hearing on this date and again on 28.09.2018, this application was listed for hearing on 16.10.2018. However, as per order dated 18.12.2020, the Appeal has been listed for final hearing on 22.03.2021. The respondent has not placed on record any order of the State Commission showing whether application dated 18.04.2017 which was already pending before the State Commission has been disposed of by the State Commission or not. Prima facie, the reasoning given by the State Commission in its order dated 22.03.2021 for abatement of Appeal i.e. failure of the Appellant to replace the legal heirs appears to be wrong. Hence, we find a material irregularity in the order of the State Commission in this regard.
The State Commission has to first issue an order on application dated 18.04.2017, which is already pending before the State Commission before taking a final decision on Appeal on merits. In view of this, order dated 22.03.2021 of the State Commission is set aside, matter is again remanded back to the State Commission for, (a) disposal of application dated 18.04.2017 for substitution of legal heirs of the deceased, ( b) disposal of main Appeal on merits after hearing both sides.
Revision Petition is disposed of accordingly. Both the parties are directed to appear before the State Commission on 18.10.2023.