State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Smt. Parwinder Kaur vs Life Insurance Corporation Of India ... on 17 July, 2017
2nd Additional Bench
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
PUNJAB, CHANDIGARH
DATE OF DECISION : 17.07.2017
1st Appeal
First Appeal No. 121 of 2017
Date of institution : 20.02.2017
Date of reserve : 07.07.2017
Smt. Parwinder Kaur W/o Late Harpal Singh S/o Gulzar Singh R/o
Ward No. 4, Victoria Enclave, Patran Road, Dirba, Tehsil Sunam,
District Sangrur.
....Appellant/Complainant
Versus
1. LIC of India, through its Branch Manager, Sangrur at
Railway Road, Sangrur.
2. LIC of India, through its Divisional Manager, Division Office
at Jeevan Parkash, Sector 17-B, Chandigarh.
....Respondents/Ops
First Appeal against the order dated
08.12.2016 of the District Consumer
Disputes Redressal Forum, Sangrur.
Quorum:-
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Paramjeet Singh Dhaliwal, President
Mr. Gurcharan Singh Saran, Judicial Member.
Present:-
For the appellant : None.
For the respondents: Sh. Rajneesh Malhotra, Advocate
First Appeal No. 121 of 2017 2
2nd Appeal
First Appeal No. 122 of 2017
Date of institution : 20.02.2017
Date of reserve : 07.07.2017
Smt. Parwinder Kaur W/o Late Harpal Singh S/o Gulzar Singh R/o Ward No. 4, Victoria Enclave, Patran Road, Dirba, Tehsil Sunam, District Sangrur.
....Appellant/Complainant Versus
1. LIC of India, through its Branch Manager, Sangrur at Railway Road, Sangrur.
2. LIC of India, through its Divisional Manager, Division Office at Jeevan Parkash, Sector 17-B, Chandigarh.
....Respondents/Ops First Appeal against the order dated 08.12.2016 of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Sangrur.
Quorum:-
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Paramjeet Singh Dhaliwal, President Mr. Gurcharan Singh Saran, Judicial Member. Present:-
For the appellant : None.
For the respondents: Sh. Rajneesh Malhotra, Advocate
3rd Appeal
First Appeal No. 165 of 2017
Date of institution : 08.03.2017
Date of reserve : 07.07.2017
First Appeal No. 121 of 2017 3
Smt. Parwinder Kaur W/o Late Harpal Singh S/o Gulzar Singh R/o Ward No. 4, Victoria Enclave, Patran Road, Dirba, Tehsil Sunam, District Sangrur.
....Appellant/Complainant Versus
1. LIC of India, through its Branch Manager, Sangrur at Railway Road, Sangrur.
2. LIC of India, through its Divisional Manager, Division Office at Jeevan Parkash, Sector 17-B, Chandigarh.
....Respondents/Ops First Appeal against the order dated 08.12.2016 of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Sangrur.
Quorum:-
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Paramjeet Singh Dhaliwal, President Mr. Gurcharan Singh Saran, Judicial Member. Present:-
For the appellant : None.
For the respondents: Sh. Rajneesh Malhotra, Advocate
GURCHARAN SINGH SARAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER ORDER The appellant/complainant in all the three appeals is same person (hereinafter referred as complainant) has filed the above mentioned appeals against the order dated 8.12.2016 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Sangrur (hereinafter referred as the District Forum) in consumer complaint Nos. 419, 420 and 429 of 2016 vide which the First Appeal No. 121 of 2017 4 complaints filed by the complainant were rejected for want of pecuniary jurisdiction.
2. Complainant filed complaint Nos. 419, 420 and 429 of 2016 before the District Forum. In complaint No. 419 of 2016 directions were sought against the Ops to pay Rs. 10 Lacs alongwith interest @ 18% p.a., compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/-
and litigation expenses of Rs. 50,000/-, in complaint No. 420 of 2016 directions were sought against the Ops to pay Rs. 10,00,000/- alongwith interest @ 18% p.a., compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/- and litigation expenses of Rs. 50,000/- and in complaint No. 429 of 2016 directions were sought against the Ops to pay Rs. 15 Lacs alongwith interest @ 18% p.a., compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/- and litigation expenses of Rs. 50,000/-. The complaints were contested by the Ops on various grounds.
3. However, the District Forum passed a consolidated order taking all the complaints together. The District Forum added the amount claimed by the complainant in all the three different complaints together and then came to the conclusion that it exceeds the pecuniary jurisdiction of the District Forum because the pecuniary jurisdiction of the District Forum is upto Rs. 20,00,000/- and consolidated claim of the complainant is Rs. 35,00,000/-.
4. Aggrieved with the order passed by the learned District Forum, the appellant/complainant has filed the above referred three appeals.
First Appeal No. 121 of 2017 5
5. None appeared on behalf of the appellant on the date of hearing. We have heard the learned counsel for the respondents Sh. Rajneesh Malhotra, Advocate and have gone through the record of the District Forum with the assistance of Mr. Rajneesh Malhotra, Advocate.
6. It has been stated in the grounds of appeal that order dated 8.12.2016 for consolidating all the three complaints is illegal because the bar of Section 105 CPC does not apply. There is no provision in CPC governing consolidation of suits of civil matter. The District Forum has referred to Section 11 of the CP Act, it speaks about the territorial jurisdiction of the District Forum. The complainant had filed three different complaints on the basis of four different policies. The policies are of different types i.e. Jeevan Anand, Jeevan Saral, Endowment Insurance and Jeevan Mitra Triple Cover Endowment Plan. These were taken on different dates i.e. policies No. 163974375 dated 28.5.2009, No. 164681968 dated 28.10.2010, No. 165025964 dated 28.11.2011 and No. 165363451 dated 28.4.2012, respectively. Although it may be relating to one person and in all the three complaints, the complainant had different causes of action. No provision of CP Act has been referred by the District Forum that in case the complainant has 3 distinct cause of action, how her three complaints can be consolidated with regard to the pecuniary jurisdiction. The pecuniary jurisdiction of the District Forum is determined on the basis of claim claimed in the individual complaint. In case individual complaints are taken, the claim of the First Appeal No. 121 of 2017 6 complainant is less than Rs. 20,00,000/- and it was rightly preferred before the District Forum. The District Forum fell in error by consolidating all the complaints together and then to determine the pecuniary jurisdiction, taking the claim of all the three complaint together, which is not a correct procedure. Therefore, the order passed by the District Forum is not a legal and valid order. It is ordered to be set-aside.
7. Sequel to the above, we accept the appeals. Impugned orders of all the abovesaid complaints are set-aside. All the three complaints are remanded back to the District Forum with the direction to decide individually complaints and then to determine the pecuniary jurisdiction according to the claim claimed in a specific complaint and other claims and then decides the claim of the complainant in accordance with law.
8. The parties through their counsel are directed to appear before the District Forum on 8.8.2017.
9. Copy of the order alongwith record be sent to the District Forum concerned immediately.
10. It appears that the order has been passed by the District Forum in a casual manner, at the end where the President and Members have signed and the word pronounced has been mentioned, the date has been put as 'December 7, 2016' whereas in the heading where complaint No., instituted on and decided on has been written, it has been mentioned as '08.12.2016'.
11. Copy of the order be placed in First Appeal Nos. 122 of 2017 and 165 of 2017.
First Appeal No. 121 of 2017 7
12. Order be communicated to the parties as per rules.
(JUSTICE PARAMJEET SINGH DHALIWAL) PRESIDENT (GURCHARAN SINGH SARAN) JUDICIAL MEMBER July 17, 2017.
as