SAGARMAL DULANIA vs ASSTT.DIRECTOR, STATE INSURANCE AND GPF DEPARTMENT, RAJASTHAN

THIS Revision Petition has been filed against the Order dated 10.3.1993 passed by the State Commission, Rajasthan at Jaipur in Appeal No. 125/92 by which it set aside the order passed by the District Redressal Forum, Sri Ganganagar.

THE facts in brief are that the Complainant Petitioner had an endowment policy from the State Insurance. He retired from the Government service on 30.6.1989 on attaining superannuation age of 58 years. He was paid his claims on 7.7.1989 which included revisionary and interim bonus as prevalent at that time vide order dt. 9.1.1990 issued by the Government of Rajasthan. The revisionary and in terim bonus were enhanced para Nos.1 and 2 relate to revisionary bonus while paras Nos. 3 and 4 relate to interim and terminal bonus. However, in para 5 of the said order it was laid down that para Nos.1 and 2 of the order will not apply to cases resulting into claims by death or maturity prior to the date of issue of that order and such cases shall be settled at the rates approved by the Government vide its order dt. 4.6.1985. The District Forum held that Clause 5 of that Order dated 9.1.1990 was invalid and he allowed the complaint and enhanced the revisionary bonus. On appeal by the Assistant Director, State Insurance and GPF Department, the State Commission held that the Forums constituted under the Consumer Protection Act have no jurisdiction to declare any clause of any order as invalid or illegal. Appeal was accepted and the order of the District Forum was set aside.

THE contention of the Complainant Petitioner is that clause 5 of the order dated 9.1.1990 is not a statutory order and therefore liable to be struck down by this Commission as it is discriminatory. We do not agree with that contention. We are to take the said order as it is. We have no jurisdiction to strike down any clause of that order.

THE Complainant further argued that in any case he is entitled to revisionary and interim bonus as laid down in Clauses 3 and 4 of the Order dt. 9.1.1990. This question was not raised before the District Forum or the State Commission. These points cannot be taken up at this stage in this Revision Petition. It was also argued by the Revision Petitioner that he has not even paid his full dues in accordance with the 1985 order. This point was also not taken before the District Forum or the State Commission and accordingly cannot be allowed to be raised at this stage. We do not find any illegality or jurisdictional error in the exercise of the powers vested in the State Commission. Accordingly, we dismiss the Revision Petition. We do not make no order as to costs.