LIC OF INDIA Vs. S KOKILA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In the view we have taken that it is a fit case to remand the matter, we do not propose to go into merits of the case. The complaint was raised for a direction to the opposite party namely the Life Insurance Corporation of India to pay a sum of Rs.1,41,400/- being the amount due and payable on the policy taken by the complainant's husband in the year 1995. The opposite parties repudiated the claim on the ground of suppression of materials facts.

(2.) The President of the Lower Forum passed an order on 19.2.1999 dismissing the complaint and holding that the repudiation was in order. A member of the lower Forum dissenting with the order passed by the President, passed an order on her own on 23.2.1999 stating that the repudiation is bad and that the complainant is entitled to the claim made. On 12.7.1999, the other Member of lower Forum passed an order concurring with the dissenting order passed by the Member on 23.2.1999 with the result that the present appeal is before us.

(3.) Under Sec.14 (2-A), Sub-clause 1 of the Consumer Protection Act, it is stated as follows: ". . . . . . Provided that where the proceeding is conducted by the President and one member and they differ on any point or points, they shall state the point or points on which they differ and refer the same to the other member for hearing on such point or points and the opinion of the majority shall be the order of the District Forum. " Here there is no clue in the order or in the notes paper to show that the proceeding here was conducted by the President and one Member alone and that the other member was absent. But, it is clear that the orders passed by the President and the Mambers were not passed on the same day or simultaneously. Four days after the order passed by the President, the Member passed her dissenting order while the other Member passed the order on 12.7.1999 accepting the dissenting order. It is not known whether on the date when the Member passed the dissenting order, she heard the Counsel on either side of the parties or made it known to the President. Similarly we have nothing to show when the second Member who passed his order on 12.7.1999 heard the parties on that day. The entire procedure followed by the lower Forum is not keeping in with the accepted norms of procedure. There is no jurisdiction for members to pas different orders at dates convenient to them without reference to each other. The orders have to be passed on the same day and simultaneously. If the President and the member do not agree, it has to be referred to the other member by them by way of order of reference. But there is no order of reference by the President and the Member to the third Member. Then alone, the third Member can pass an order either accepting or dissenting either on the same day or later on and after hearing both the parties and after giving notice. But all these judicial precautions and purposeful procedure are given a go-bye in this case. Therefore, in our opinion, the order passed by the lower Forum runs counter to Sec.14 (2-A) in every respect. Therefore, an incurable defect has set in, in the order that can be rectified only by setting aside the order passed by the Members and the President and remitting the matter back for fresh disposal in accordance with the law especially in the light of Sec.14 (2-A) of Consumer Protection Act.