NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED Vs. GEETA BAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against the order dated 31.1.2009. passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rewa in case No. 70/08. The case has a chequered history. Husband of respondent/complainant had obtained an accident policy for the sum of Rs. 75,000 in the year 1998 and unfortunately he died on 4.1.2001. When the claim was not settled, the wife of the deceased/insured filed a complaint before the District Forum where her case was registered as 338/04. The District Forum decided the case on 30.5.2007, with the direction that if the respondent/complainant submits the death certificate, autopsy report, report of the inquiry by police and a certificate from the doctor, who conducted the post mortem, within one month, the non -applicant No. 3 shall examine these papers within two months from the date of the order. It was further directed that if the complainant was not a nominee, then she should produce the certificate of her being the successor. It is alleged that after this order was passed the Insurance Company paid the sum assured Rs. 75,000 and the chapter was closed. However, the respondent/complainant again filed a complaint No. 70/08, which was decided by the District Forum by order dated 31.1.2009. In this order the District Forum observed that on the basis of the issues, the complainant was entitled to interest on the sum assured Rs. 75,000 and accordingly to pay interest from 6.5.2001 to 7.12.2007 @ 9% per annum and as compensation for mental agony an amount of Rs. 5,000 has been awarded. It is this modification of the direction that has been challenged in the present appeal by the Insurance Company.

(2.) MR . Nighoskar, learned Counsel for the appellant/Insurance Company has raised a question about the maintainability of the second complaint. He submits that the matter was concluded in the previous litigation, i.e. in case No. 338/04, which was decided on 30.5.2007, the Forum had become functus officio and, therefore, was not empowered to entertain the complaint on the very same subject. He has also pointed out that in the first case also interest was claimed by the respondent/complainant, which was not awarded, which amounts to refusal to grant any such relief. He has also stated that the respondent/complainant has an alternative remedy, viz. appeal, against the direction and if she was aggrieved by the direction, she ought to have availed that remedy for specific direction with regard to entitlement of interest.

(3.) WE have examined the record and heard learned Counsel for the parties. From the record it is clear that the first round of litigation was closed by the order dated 30.5.2007 and in the absence of any appeal having been filed against the said order, the said order was not assailable as it had become final. The District Forum could not have arrogated the jurisdiction but the Forum has practically reviewed the order dated 30 5.2009 passed in case No. 338/04 and gave a fresh relief. We may also note that it is not a case where against the relief granted by the Insurance Company, the execution was filed. It was simply a case where the direction was given by order dated 30.5.2007, simplicitor for payment of amount as may be due and the amount has been paid by the Insurance Company. If the District Forum wanted to make the direction as interlocutory, the fact that the case has been finally disposed of contra -indicates any such intention. The order dated 30.5.2007 was not interlocutory order and since the power of review does not vest on the Fora, the Forum could not have reviewed that order by directing that interest should be paid on the sum assured Rs. 75,000 for the period from 6.5.2001 to 7.12.2007 @ 9% per annum. The Forum also could not have awarded Rs. 5,000 towards mental agony and Rs. 500 for cost.