Hadubandhu Nayak vs The Manager
2022 Latest Caselaw 2767 Ori

          IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

                            W.P.(C) No.10649 of 2022
                            (Through hybrid mode)

        Hadubandhu Nayak                         ....           Petitioner

                                               Mr. M.K. Nayak, Advocate
                                    -versus-

        The Manager, LIC of India, BBSR          ....     Opposite Parties
        and others


                  CORAM: JUSTICE ARINDAM SINHA
                                   ORDER

Order                             20.05.2022
No.                          I.A. No.5528 of 2022
 1.      1.    Mr. Nayak, learned advocate appears on behalf of petitioner

and submits, his client has impugned order dated 5th May, 2018 as

well as order dated 13th September, 2021 confirming the earlier order

in first appeal. He submits, the Consumer District Forum did not

appreciate his client's case.

2. He submits, his client had taken a policy, which required

monthly installment premium of Rs.27.71 to be paid for maturity

value at Rs.10,000/- on 9th December, 1996. During subsistence of the

policy, petitioner suffered vigilance proceeding against him. Inter

alia, the policy document was seized and petitioner was suspended

from service. Petitioner could not, at that time, pay the premium.

After maturity date of the policy, petitioner stood acquitted. He

// 2 //

resumed paying the premium and paid the entire aggregate policy

period premium, lastly in December, 1997. This cannot be disputed.

The insurance company, however, calculated maturity value of the

policy on premium receipt during policy period and only paid

Rs.18,039/- and Rs.364/- as panel interest. He submits, his client was

entitled to more as the period, in which installment premium could

not be paid, was by reason of the vigilance case. Petitioner stood

acquitted. He prays for direction on issuance of notice and interim

protection.

3. This Bench, following caution to the High Courts by order in

Cicily Kallarackal v. Vehicle Factory, reported in (2012) 8 SCC

524 had dismissed writ petitions directed against orders made under

the Consumer Disputes Act. However, the Supreme Court by

judgment dated 13th May, 2022 in Civil Appeal no.3072 of 2022

(Ibrat Faizan v. Omaxe Buildhome Pvt. Ltd.) has now declared, it

cannot be said that a writ petition under article 227 of the Constitution

of India before the concerned High Court against order passed by the

National Commission in an appeal under section 58(1)(a)(iii) of

Consumer Disputes Act, 2019 is not maintainable.

// 3 //

4. In the circumstances, issue notice along with this order on

opposite party no.1 by registered/speed post with AD. Petitioner will

put in requisites.

5. List on 23rd June, 2022. The interim application will be

considered on returnable date.

(Arindam Sinha) Judge Sks