State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Reliance Life Insurenace Co. Ltd. vs Pamma on 5 July, 2017
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PUNJAB,
CHANDIGARH.
Misc. Application No.1105 of 2017
In/and
First Appeal No. 834 of 2016
Date of institution : 01.11.2016
Date of decision : 05.07.2017
1. Reliance Life Insurance Company Limited, Registered
Office at "H" Block, First Floor, Dhirubhai Ambani Knowledge
City, Navi Mumbai-400 059.
2. Reliance Life Insurance Company Limited, 2nd Floor,
Opposite Municipal Council, The Mall, Ferozepur City through
its authorized signatory both through their Authorised Signatory
Mr. Muniesh Khosla, Senior Territory Manager, Reliance Life
Insurance, available at SCO No.147-148, First Floor, Sector 9-
C, Madhya Marg, Chandigarh.
.......Appellants-Opposite Parties
Versus
Pamma aged 22/23 years s/o Sham Lal s/o Khushi Ram, resident of
Village Moti Wala, Tehsil Guru Har Sahai, District Ferozepur.
........Respondent-Complainant
First Appeal against the order dated
16.8.2016 of the District Consumer
Disputes Redressal Forum, Ferozepur.
Quorum:-
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Paramjeet Singh Dhaliwal, President
Shri Harcharan Singh Guram, Member
Present:-
For the appellants : Shri Inderjit Singh, Advocate. For the respondent : Shri M.S. Dua, Advocate.
JUSTICE PARAMJEET SINGH DHALIWAL, PRESIDENT:
The instant First Appeal has been preferred by the appellants- opposite parties against the order dated 16.8.2016 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ferozepur (in short, "District First Appeal No. 834 of 2016 2 Forum"), vide which the complaint filed by Pamma, respondent/complainant, under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, has been allowed ex parte and the operative part thereof reads as under:-
"9. In the light of discussion made above, this complaint stand allowed with ₹5,000/-, as consolidated compensation for mental agony, pain and harassment as well as litigation expenses. The opposite parties are directed to decide the claim qua the death of Sham Lal in favour of Pamma nominee within 40 days from the date of receipt of copy of the order and also to pay interest @ 9% per annum since the date of death i.e. 15.6.2014 till realization. A copy of this order be communicated to the parties concerned free of costs. File be consigned to the record room."
2. It would be apposite to mention that hereinafter the parties will be referred, as have been arrayed before the District Forum.
3. Brief facts, as stated in the complaint, are that the father of the complainant since deceased; namely, Sham Lal, during his life time, purchased Life Insurance Policy bearing No.51618332 from the opposite parties for a sum assured of ₹4,50,000/- and had been paying the premium of the policy regularly. Unfortunately he died on 15.6.2014. After the death of Sham Lal, the complainant approached the opposite parties; being nominee under the policy First Appeal No. 834 of 2016 3 and submitted his claim along with all requisite documents. The opposite parties did not make the payment despite repeated requests. In the last, the opposite parties repudiated the claim of the complainant on the ground that Sham Lal, father of the complainant, had already died prior to the policy issuing date, whereas, Sham Lal died on 15.6.2014 i.e. after the issuance of the policy. Hence the present complaint has been filed by the complainant alleging deficiency in service and adoption of unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties.
4. The opposite parties did not appear despite service and, therefore, were proceeded against ex parte before the District Forum. The complainant tendered ex parte evidence before the District Forum, which after going through the same and hearing learned counsel on behalf of the complainant allowed the complaint, vide aforesaid order. Hence, this appeal.
5. We have heard learned counsel for both the sides and have carefully gone through the records of the case.
6. Learned counsel for the appellants has vehemently contended that the appellants filed First Appeal No.605 of 2016 against the ex parte order passed by the District Forum in which this Commission while issuing notice to the respondent stayed the passing of the final order, vide order dated 16.8.2016. However, the District Forum decided the complaint on the same day, vide impugned order and the aforesaid appeal was disposed of by this Commission having been rendered infructuous. Learned counsel for the appellants has further contended that the present case is clear cut case of fraud First Appeal No. 834 of 2016 4 played by the complainant upon the opposite parties, which is apparently proved from the documents procured by them during investigation. The rights of the appellants have been affected having not been able to defend the case as there was no valid service upon them. Moreover, no prejudice would be caused to the complainant if the instant appeal is allowed and the impugned order is set aside. Contract of insurance is based upon the principle of "uberrima fides"
and the policy holder was duty bound to reveal all the relevant facts to the insurer in order to determine the policy holder's eligibility for availing the insurance. He relied upon following judgments:-
i) "Satwant Kaur Sandhu v. New India Assurance Company Limited" 2009 (IV) CPJ 8 (SC);
ii) "TATA AIG Life Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Orissa State Co-
operative Bank & Anr." 2012 (IV) CPJ 310 (NC);
iii) "Life Insurance Corporation of India & Anr. v.
Mandava Geetha" 2012 (III) CPJ 398 (NC);
iv) "Sadanand Bag v. Life Insurance Corporation of India & Anr." 2012 (III) CPJ 398 (NC);
v) "LIC of India v. Rukma" 2012 (II) CPJ 44 (NC);
vi) "Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Francis Antony D'Souza" 2012(2) CLT 176 (NC);
vii) "LIC of India v. Premlata Aggarwal" 2012(2) CLT 182 (NC); and
viii) "Meenaben Ashok Kumar Patel v. Life Insurance Corporation of India" 2012(2) CLT 415 (NC).
First Appeal No. 834 of 2016 5He further contended that an opportunity be given to defend the case by filing written statement and to lead evidence. Admittedly the presumption was raised on the basis of registered letters sent having been received after 30 days and it was presumed to be valid service but the fact remains that many a times this is not properly served and remains with the Postal Department or in the diary register; as a result of which delay occurs.
7. Per contra, learned counsel for the complainant has contended that the District Forum has correctly passed the impugned order, after properly appreciating the evidence on the record. A valid service has been effected upon the opposite parties and they themselves chose to remain absent from the proceeding before the District Forum and now they cannot challenge the findings of the District Forum. There is no merit in the present appeal and the same is liable to be dismissed.
8. We have given thoughtful consideration to the contentions raised by the learned counsel for both the sides.
9. The appellants/opposite parties were proceeded against ex parte before the District Forum and were not afforded any opportunity to defend the case. The case of the opposite parties is that the date of death of Sham Lal, insured, was mentioned in the claim form as 15.6.2014 due to heart attack. However, during investigation it was found that in fact Sham Lal, insured, had already died on 15.2.2014.
10. It is now well settled that the cases should not be decided on technicalities only. The parties should be afforded adequate First Appeal No. 834 of 2016 6 opportunity to defend their case. The other party can be compensated by way of costs. The rights of the parties should not be forfeited merely on the basis of technicalities. In the present case, we are convinced that although the service was on the basis of presumption having posted a registered letter and which was not received back after 30 days, which is a common practice but we are of the view that opportunity must be afforded in the interest of justice, equity and fair play.
11. It is settled principle of law, as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bhagmal & Ors. v. Kunwar Lal AIR 2010 SC 2991, that a party, which claims to have substantial right, which require adjudication by a Court of law, should not be denied the opportunity of hearing, by not setting aside the order on hyper- technical grounds.
12. In another case "Bhagwan Swaroop vs. Mool Chand" (1983) 2 SCC 132, Hon'ble Supreme Court held that court's approach should be oriented with a view whether substantial justice is done between the parties or technical rules of procedure are given precedence over doing substantial justice in court. A code of procedure is designed to facilitate justice and further its ends; not a penal enactment for punishment and penalties.
13. Admittedly, the appellants/opposite parties have not been afforded opportunity to defend the case, as they were proceeded against ex parte. Even if, they were negligent in not appearing before the District Forum, still they can be allowed an opportunity for putting up their defence and for any prejudice likely to be caused to the First Appeal No. 834 of 2016 7 complainant by doing so, he can well be compensated by way of costs. So, in the peculiar circumstances of the case, the ends of justice would be met, if the appellants/opposite parties are afforded an opportunity to file their reply and defend the complaint by way of tendering evidence, if any.
14. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and the impugned order is set aside, subject to costs of ₹20,000/-, out of which ₹5,000/- shall be paid to the respondent/complainant and the remaining amount of ₹15,000/- shall be deposited in the Consumer Legal Aid Account of this Commission by the Registry. The case is remanded back to the District Forum, with a direction to decide the complaint on merits. It is made clear that on the date of appearance given by this Commission, the appellants shall positively appear before the District Forum and file their reply, along with affidavit and documents whatsoever, they intend to produce. The complainant shall also be given an opportunity to rebut the evidence to be led by the opposite parties. Thereafter, the District Forum shall decide the complaint afresh, after affording due opportunity of hearing to both the sides. M.A. No.1105 of 2017:
15. This is an application for placing on record documents by way of additional evidence. Since we have allowed the aforesaid appeal; and set aside the impugned order, therefore, the appellants/opposite parties are entitled to lead their evidence before the District Forum. The complainant will also be entitled to rebut the said evidence, if any.
16. Misc. Application stands disposed of.
First Appeal No. 834 of 2016 8
17. The parties, through their counsel, are directed to appear before the District Forum on 18.08.2017. Records of the District Forum be returned immediately.
18. The appellants had deposited a sum of ₹25,000/- at the time of filing of the appeal. Out of this amount, ₹15,000/- shall be deposited by the Registry in the Consumer Legal Aid Account of this Commission. ₹5,000/- shall be remitted to the respondent- complainant and the remaining ₹5,000/- along with interest, if any, accrued on the amount of ₹25,000/- for the period it remained deposited in the Bank shall be remitted to appellant/opposite party No.1, as per the undertaking given by them, by way of cross- cheques/demand drafts.
(JUSTICE PARAMJEET SINGH DHALIWAL) PRESIDENT (HARCHARAN SINGH GURAM) MEMBER July 05, 2017 Bansal