AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner against the order dated 19.05.2010 passed by the A.P. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Hyderabad (in short, ''the State Commission'') in Appeal No. 963 of 2007 - Polu Laxmikantham (died) & Anr. Vs. The Branch Manager, Shri Ram Direct to Home Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. by which, while allowing appeal order of District Forum dismissing complaint was set aside.
Brief facts of the case are that Complainant''s wife Polu Swarupa became member of the Road Safety Club Programme through OP No. 1/Respondent No.2. Complainant obtained four membership certificates in the name of his wife and OP No. 3/Petitioner No.1 issued four certificates of insurance covering personal accident for Rs. 3,00,000/- each for a period from 6.7.2003 to 5.7.2004. Polu Swarupa died on 31.10.2003 due to burst of gas cylinder while preparing food. Case was registered and after inquiry final report was submitted. Complainant submitted claim with all necessary papers, but OPs avoided claim. Alleging deficiency on the part of OP, complainant filed complaint before District forum. OP No. 1 resisted complaint and admitted issuance of policies, but submitted that complainant is required to prove by strict proof that death of complainant''s wife was purely accidental beyond all reasonable doubts and denied any deficiency and prayed for dismissal of complaint. OP No. 2 & 3 did not appear and they were proceeded ex-parte. Learned District Forum after hearing parties disposed of complaint directing complainant to approach Civil Court. Appeal filed by complainant was allowed by learned State Commission vide impugned order against which this revision petition has been filed.
None appeared for Respondent No. 2 and he was proceeded ex-parte.
Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and Respondent No.1 and perused record.
Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that inspite of filing charge sheet under Section 302 against the complainant Polu Laxmikantham, learned State Commission committed error in allowing appeal; hence, revision petition be allowed and impugned order be set aside. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the respondent submitted that order passed by learned State Commission is in accordance with law; hence, revision petition be dismissed.
Learned District Forum by a detailed order and with cogent reasons directed complainant to approach Civil Court after observing as under: "17. The circumstances shows that the complainant had killed his wife because of differences with his wife in order to g et more money from the policies. The opposite parties have further argued that as there are more conflicts on the death of deceased, it needs expert evidence as to cause of death of deceased".
xxxx The report of the Surveyor and the statements of the witnesses creates more doubt regarding the Modus Operandi of the complainant and the doubt expressed by the mother, sister and house owner of the decreased, that the complainant used to harass the deceased policy holder.:"
Learned State Commission observed that Police after investigation opined that death was accidental death by burns while preparing food. Perusal of record clearly reveals that charge sheet under Section 302 IPC was filed in the year 2008 and thus, it becomes clear that final report Exb. 18 was not accepted by the Criminal Court and cognizance was taken under Section 302 IPC. Learned State Commission has committed error in not considering charge sheet and deciding appeal merely on the basis of final report Exb. 18 which was not accepted by Criminal Court.
It appears that proceedings under Section 302 IPC were dropped later on as complainant who was accused in that case died during the pendency of trial. In such circumstances, it cannot be said that charge sheet filed against complainant was baseless and learned State Commission has committed error in allowing complaint on the basis of final report submitted earlier by Police.
Learned District Forum by a detailed order rightly observed that complainant should approach Civil Court and learned State Commission in impugned order has not discussed anything regarding this aspect and in such circumstances, impugned order is liable to set aside.
I do not find any illegality, irregularity or jurisdictional error in the order of District Forum.
Consequently, revision petition filed by the petitioner is allowed and order dated 9.5.2010 passed by learned State Commission in Appeal No. 963 of 2007 - Polu Laxmikantham (died) & Anr. Vs. The Branch Manager, Shri Ram Direct to Home Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. is set aside and order dated 11.04.2007 passed by learned District Forum in CC No. 05/2006 - Polu Laxmikantham Vs. The Branch Manager, Shri Ram Direct to Home Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. is confirmed. There shall be no order as to costs.