State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Baldev Singh Bajwa, S/O Sh. Gopal Singh ... vs 1. Sh. Gaurav Bajaj, Assistant Manager, ... on 8 January, 2013
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, U.T., CHANDIGARH First Appeal No. : 433 of 2012 Date of Institution : 27.12.2012 Date of Decision : 08.01.2013 Baldev Singh Bajwa, s/o Sh. Gopal Singh H.No.458, Kansal, Chandigarh (Senior Citizen-Ex-Serviceman) Appellant/complainant. V e r s u s 1. Sh. Gaurav Bajaj, Assistant Manager, Br. Customer Service, M/s AVIVA LIC, SCO 180-82 (GF), Madhya Marg, Sector 9-C, Chandigarh 2. M/s AVIVA LIC through Managing Director, 5th Floor, JMD, Regents Square, Mehrauli Road, Gurgaon ....Respondents/Opposite Parties Appeal under Section 27-A of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. BEFORE: JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER (RETD.), PRESIDENT. MRS. NEENA SANDHU, MEMBER.
Argued by: Sh. Baldev Singh Bajwa, appellant in person.
PER JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER (RETD.), PRESIDENT This appeal, under Section 27-A, of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, has been filed by the appellant/complainant, against the order dated 10.12.2012, rendered by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, U.T., Chandigarh (hereinafter to be called as the District Forum only), in Criminal Petition/Execution Application No.146 of 2012, vide which, it dismissed the same.
2. The facts, in brief, are that Mr. Baldev Singh Bajwa, complainant (now appellant), filed Consumer Complaint No.82 of 2012, in the District Forum, in respect of purchase of a Pension Plus Single Premium-Unit Linked Policy, in which the order dated 21.06.2012 was passed, the operative part whereof, reads as under:-
As a result of the above discussion, we dispose of this complaint with directions to the OPs to release the maturity amount of the Policy in question to the complainant forthwith, subject to his completion of all necessary formalities, referred to above
3. Feeling aggrieved, the complainant filed First Appeal No.246 of 2012, in this Commission, which was dismissed vide order dated 01.08.2012.
4. Thereafter, the Decree Holder/complainant filed the Criminal Petition/Execution Application, before the District Forum, stating therein, that he approached Opposite Party No.1 and deposited the requisite documents, to get released the maturity amount of the Policy, but it sent letter dated 16.07.2012, taking technical objections, without any basis. It was further stated that the amount offered to him, as per Article 4 was not acceptable to him. It was further stated that he made a request to the Opposite Parties, to show him the visitors register, for the month of October 2011, vide letter Annexure C-13, but they intimated him, vide letter dated 16.01.2012 (wrongly mentioned in the letter as 16.01.2011), that there was no entry, in the visitors register, before 22.11.2011. It was further stated that the complainant was entitled to the benefits under Article 8 of the Insurance Policy, after the maturity thereof. It was further stated that, since the Opposite Parties, had not complied with the order of the District Forum, passed in the Consumer Complaint and upheld by this Commission, they be punished under Section 27 of the Act.
5. Show cause notice of the Criminal Petition/Execution Application, was given to the Opposite Parties, which put in appearance, through their Counsel and filed reply, wherein, it was stated by them, that they were ready to comply with the order of the District Forum, passed in the Consumer Complaint, which was upheld by this Commission.
6. After hearing the Decree Holder/complainant and the Counsel for the Judgment Debtors/Opposite Parties, the District Forum, dismissed the Criminal Petition/Execution Application, as stated above .
7. Feeling aggrieved, the instant appeal, has been filed by the appellant/Decree Holder/complainant.
8. We have heard the appellant/Decree Holder/complainant, at the preliminary stage, and, have gone through the record of the case, carefully.
9. The appellant, at the time of arguments, submitted that he was entitled to the maturity amount of the Policy, as per Article 8 of the same, and not as per Article
4. He further submitted that the respondents/Opposite Parties, be directed to produce the original visitors register, for the month of October 2011. He further submitted that Mr. Gaurav Bajaj, Assistant Manager of Opposite Party No.1, be also directed to furnish his own affidavit, regarding the averments of the complainant, that he had met him, in October 2011, before the maturity date, and that he had advised him, to come on the due date. He further submitted that Mr. Gaurav Singh of the Customer Advocacy Team, be also directed to clarify his stand, on the letters dated 16.01.2012 and 27.02.2012, signed by him, on behalf of the Opposite Parties, and addressed to the complainant. He further submitted that the original visitors register and the affidavit of Mr. Gaurav Bajaj, Assistant Manager of Opposite Party No.1, were essential for the just decision of the appeal. He further submitted that the impugned order of the District Forum, being illegal, is liable to be set aside, and the Opposite Parties/respondents/Judgment Debtors, deserved to be punished according to Section 27 of the Act.
10. According to the operative part of the order extracted above, which was passed by the District Forum, in Consumer Complaint No. 82 of 2012 dated 21.06.2012, the same (Consumer Complaint) was disposed of, with a direction to the Opposite Parties, to release the maturity amount of the Policy, in favour of the complainant, subject to completion of all the necessary formalities. Feeling aggrieved, the appellant/complainant, filed First Appeal No. 246 of 2012, which was decided by this Commission, on 01.08.2012, wherein, it was specifically held, in paragraph number 8, that the Opposite Parties had informed the complainant, regarding the maturity of the Policy, well before the due date, but neither he responded to the same, nor sent any written request for surrender value, prior to the maturity date. Accordingly, this Commission held that the complainant could not take benefit of Article 8, after maturity of the Policy, as he failed to do so, during the existence of the same. This Commission also held that the District Forum was right, in observing that the complainant was only entitled to the amount, as per Article 4 of the Policy. Once, a particular issue, had been decided, to the effect, that the complainant was only entitled to the amount, as per Article 4 of the Policy, and not as per Article 8 of the same, by this Commission, in the appeal, vide order dated 01.08.2012, the same attained finality. In case, the appellant/complainant was aggrieved against the order, passed by this Commission, in First Appeal No.246 of 2012, on 01.08.2012, he had the remedy to approach the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi, by way of filing Revision Petition. Since, he did not file any Revision Petition, against the order, passed by this Commission, the same became final. The same point, therefore, could not be re-agitated by the appellant/complainant/Decree Holder, before the District Forum, in the proceedings, under Section 27 of the Act. The District Forum could not go beyond the order passed by it, in the Consumer Complaint, and upheld by this Commission, in First Appeal No.246 of 2012, vide order dated 01.08.2012. During the proceedings under Section 27 of the Act, the District Forum, being the Executing Forum, was only required to ensure the compliance of the order passed by it, and upheld by this Commission, in the appeal, and could not determine the legality or otherwise thereof. The submission of the appellant, to the effect, that the Opposite Parties/respondents/Judgment Debtors, be directed to produce original visitors register for the month of October 2011; Mr. Gaurav Bajaj, Assistant Manager of Opposite Party No.1, be directed to file his own affidavit, regarding the averments of the complainant, that he had met him, in October 2011, before the maturity date, and that he had advised him to come on the due date; that Mr. Gaurav Singh of the Customer Advocacy Team, be directed to clarify his stand, on the letters dated 16.01.2012 and 27.02.2012, signed by him, on behalf of the Opposite Parties, and addressed to the complainant; that the order of the District Forum dated 21.06.2012 and 01.08.2012 of this Commission, be recalled and set aside, does not carry any substance. These questions could not be dealt with, or decided by the District Forum, in the proceedings under Section 27 of the Act. As stated above, once, the Judgment of this Commission, attained finality, as no Revision Petition against the same was filed, by the appellant/complainant/Decree Holder, he could not ask for further inquiry, into the matter, already finally decided. Under these circumstances, the submission of the appellant/ complainant/Decree Holder, with regard to the production of documents, referred to above, and seeking other directions, aforesaid, does not carry any substance. The District Forum was right, in holding that it could not go beyond the order, passed in the Consumer Complaint, which was upheld by this Commission. The submission of the appellant, in this regard, being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same stands rejected.
11. The Opposite Parties/respondents/Judgment Debtors, in clear-cut terms, took up the plea that the complainant/appellant/Decree Holder was duty bound to exercise one of the options, given in Article 4, as per the order of the District Forum, which was upheld by this Commission, but he did not give his consent. The appellant/complainant/Decree Holder, himself, was not ready to perform his duty, as per the order passed, in the Consumer Complaint and upheld by this Commission, in the appeal, which had attained finality. It was, only after exercising the option, under Article 4, that the respondents/Opposite Parties/Judgment Debtors could settle his claim. On the other hand, the appellant/complainant/Decree Holder was adamant that his claim be settled as per Article 8 of the standard terms and conditions of the Policy. Such a stand taken by the appellant/complainant/Decree Holder, being contrary to the order passed by the District Forum, on 21.06.2012, and upheld by this Commission, in First Appeal No.246 of 2012, on 01.08.2012, was rightly rejected by the District Forum, holding that it could not go beyond the orders, passed in the Consumer Complaint and upheld by this Commission. The District Forum, in our considered opinion, was, thus, right, in holding that the respondents/Opposite Parties/Judgment Debtors, could not be said to have willfully and intentionally disobeyed the order passed by it, in the Consumer Complaint, which was upheld by this Commission, in First Appeal No.246 of 2012, vide order dated 01.08.2012. The District Forum was also right, in holding that there was no merit, in the Criminal Petition/Execution Application. The District Forum was, thus, right in dismissing the Criminal Petition/Execution Application, filed by the appellant/petitioner/complainant, under Section 27 of the Act.
12. No other point, was urged, by the appellant in person.
13. In view of the above discussion, it is held that the order passed by the District Forum, in Criminal Petition/Execution Application No.146 of 2012, being based on the correct appreciation of record, and law, on the point, does not suffer from any illegality or perversity, warranting the interference of this Commission, and the same is liable to be upheld.
14. For the reasons recorded above, the appeal, being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same is dismissed, at the preliminary stage, with no order as to costs. The order of the District Forum, passed in Criminal Petition/Execution Application No.146 of 2012, is upheld.
15. Certified copies of this order, be sent to the parties, free of charge.
16. The file be consigned to Record Room, after completion Pronounced.
08.01.2013 Sd/-
[JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER (RETD.)] PRESIDENT Sd/-
[NEENA SANDHU] MEMBER Rg