State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
S.B.I.Life Ins. Co.Ltd. vs Triloky Choudhary W/O Rajendra ... on 1 February, 2017
Daily Order BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,RAJASTHAN,JAIPUR BENCH NO.1 FIRST APPEAL NO: 60/2017 SBI Life Insurance Co. Ltd. M.V.Road and Western Express Highway Junction, Andheri (East) Mumbai & ors. Vs. Triloki Choudhary w/o Rajendra Choudhary Prop. Sunil Industries, Rampura Dabri, Chomu Road,Jaipur. Date of Order 1.2.2017 Before: Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Nisha Gupta- President Hon'ble Mr.K.K.Bagri-Member
Hon'ble Mrs. Sunita Ranka -Member Mr. Prashant Mantri counsel for the appellant BY THE STATE COMMISSION ( PER HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE NISHA GUPTA,PRESIDENT):
This appeal has been filed against the judgment of the 2 District Forum, Jaipur 2nd dated 20.12.2016 whereby the claim has been allowed against the appellant and further proceedings under section 340 CRPC has been initiated against Smt.Neelam Singh.
The contention of the appellant is that the claim has been honoured and amount due under the claim has been paid to the respondent but proceedings under section 340 CRPC should not have been initiated as there is no finding of the court that it is expedient in the interest of justice to initiate the proceedings and no preliminary inquiry has been done. There is no prima facie case against the appellant to initiate the proceedings.
Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and perused the impugned judgment.
The facts of the case are that Rs. 15,000/- has been paid by the complainant respondent for the insurance policy but policy bond was never sent to the complainant respondent and Smt.Neelam Singh has sworn on affidavit that on 28.5.2013 the policy was sent by speed post which was returned back on 3 17.6.2013. Thereafter policy was never delivered to the complainant and in view of the above facts claim has been allowed against the appellant and it has also been ordered that notice be issued to Smt.Neelam Singh for initiation of proceedings under section 340 CRPC. Hence, in view of the above it is more than clear that still the proceedings under section 340 CRPC are not concluded in the matter.
The appellant has relied upon III (2006 ) CPJ 73 (NC Reliance India Mobile Ltd. Vs. Hari chand Gupta, AIR 1971 Supreme Court 1367 Chajoo Ram Vs. Radhey Shyam & ors., AIR 1963 Supreme Court 816 Shabir Hussain Bholu Vs. State of Maharashtra, (2001) 9 SCC 742 B.K.Gupta Vs. Damodar H.Bajaj & ors. and AIR 2005 Supreme Court 2119 Iqbal Singh Marwah Vs. Meenakshi Marwah & ors. where scope of section 340 CRPC has been explained.
There is no dispute about the above preposition but all these objections should have been taken by the appellant before the Forum below where proceedings under section 340 CRPC are pending.
4In view of the above there is no merit in this appeal not worth admission and stands rejected.
(Sunita Ranka ) (K.K.Bagri) (Nisha Gupta ) Member Member President nm