Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

4. The prayer was made in the complaint for issuance of directions to the OPs to pay an amount of ₹5 lac as compensation under the said scheme along interest at the rate of 12% per annum w.e.f. from the death of the insured till its realization.

5. The complaint was contested by the OPs on issuing notice by the District Commission.

6. OPs No.1 & 2 also filed joint reply, wherein certain legal objections were raised by stating therein that the OPs had no concern with the claim and the complaint was not maintainable as the complainant was not falling under the definition of consumer, as no premium was paid for availing the facility under the scheme. Further it was mentioned that the claimant was not having any pre-existing right to file the complaint as no cause of action had arisen to file the complaint against OPs No.1 & 2. The District Commission was having no jurisdiction to entertain and decide the complaint as the complainant was not falling under the definition of consumer.

11. There was a delay of 48 days in filing of the appeal. Misc. Application No.531 of 2022 was filed for condonation of delay, which was supported by an affidavit. Said application was allowed vide order dated 22.04.2022 and the delay in filing of the appeal was condoned.

12. Mr. Munish Goel, learned counsel for the appellant/OP No.3 has submitted that the claim of the complainant was rightly repudiated on the ground that as per the Chemical Report and the final opinion of the doctor, there was presence of alcohol in the body of the deceased, which was falling under the exclusion clause of the terms and conditions of the policy. The terms and conditions of the policy were supplied to the State of Punjab and Director, Health and Family Welfare, Punjab. Learned counsel has further submitted that as per the statement of Hardeep Singh recorded in the FIR along with postmortem report and viscera report, it was found that the deceased was under the influence of alcohol. The deceased did not die due to any accident but he was murdered and as such the death was not falling under the terms and conditions of the policy. Even as per the Tender issued by the State of Punjab, the claim was not payable. Learned counsel has also submitted that the complainant was not falling under the definition of 'consumer', as she had neither paid any premium nor availed any facility under the scheme. The State Government had also issued a Notification dated 02.05.2016 for settlement of the disputes of the stakeholders by the District Grievance Redressal Committee (DGRC) but the complainant did not move any representation before the said committee and as such the complainant was not entitled for any claim. The District Commission has failed to take into consideration all these facts and circumstances and the impugned order is liable to be set aside. Learned counsel has also relied upon the judgment dated 30.03.2022 passed by the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. v. Maninder Singh Patwari & Ors. as well as the judgment passed by the Hon'ble National Commission reported as 2006 CLT 253 but no copy of said judgment had been supplied.

35. As far as the objection of the OPs that the complainant was not falling under the definition of consumer as she had not paid any premium, is concerned, it is relevant to mention that the definition of 'consumer' is provided under Section 2 (1) (d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (now Section 2 (7) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019), which reads as under:

"(7) "consumer" means any person who--

(i) ---------------------------------; or

(ii) hires or avails of any service for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment and includes any beneficiary of such service other than the person who hires or avails of the services for consideration paid or promised, or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment, when such services are availed of with the approval of the first mentioned person, but does not include a person who avails of such service for any commercial purpose.

36. From the perusal of definition of 'consumer' as given above, the beneficiary of any such service availed by such person also comes under the category of consumer. Therefore, the complainant being the wife of the insured falls under the definition of 'consumer' being beneficiary.

37. The other stand of the appellant is that the State Government has also issued a Notification dated 02.05.2016 for settlement of the disputes of the stakeholders by the District Grievance Redressal Committee (DGRC) but the complainant never moved any representation before the said committee. In this regard, it is relevant to mention that as per Section 3 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (now Section 100 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019), the provisions of the Act are in addition to and not in derogation of the provisions of any other law for the time being in force. Therefore, the District Commission had the jurisdiction to entertain and try such like cases being additional remedy.