High Court of Chhattisgarh
Case Details
YOGESH TIWARI Digitally signed by YOGESH TIWARI Date: 2025.07.23 18:56:24 +0530 1 / 13 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 4499 of 2022 AFR Order Reserved on 07.05.2025 Order Delivered on 23.07.2025 Nasibun Nisha, Wd/o Late Mohd. Farukh Ansari, Aged about 45 years, R/o Village Joor (Banja), Tahsil Bhaiyathan, District Surajpur (C.G.) Versus ... Petitioner 1. Axis Bank Limited, A company incorporated under the provision of Companies Act 1956, through its Branch Manager, Axis Bank Ltd. Address- Sidara Complex, Seepat Road, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh, 495001 2. Max Life Insurance Company Limited, Through its Operation Centre Second Floor, 90A, Sector 18, Udyog Vihar, Gurugram, 122015, Haryana 3. Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority of India Through its, The Chairman, Address- Sy No.115/1, Financial District, Nanakramguda, Gachibowli, Hyderabad, 500032. (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) ... Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Gyan Prakash Shukla, Advocate For Respondent No.3 : Mr. Ashok Kumar Varma and Mr. Anmol Varma, Advocates Hon'ble Shri Amitendra Kishore Prasad, Judge C A V Order 1. Heard Mr. Gyan Prakash Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Ashok Kumar Verma along with Mr. Anmol 2 / 13 Varma, learned counsel for respondent No.3. 2. The petitioner seeks to challenge the order dated 16.12.2021 passed by the Max Life Insurance Company i.e. respondent No.2 herein stating that the husband of the petitioner namely, Late Mohd. Farukh Ansari has purchased one Tractor bearing registration number CG29-AD-3266, which was financed by respondent No.1 while sanctioning an amount of Rs.4,93,464/-. The said Tractor was insured by respondent No.2. An agreement
Facts
was entered into between the parties, according to which in case of death of borrower, the balance amount was required to be adjusted from the Max Life Insurance Company Limited i.e. respondent No.2. As the husband of the petitioner opted for premium ‘waiver benefits’. During pendamic Covid-19, the husband of the petitioner expires as such, the information regarding the same was given to the concerned Bank. After the death of borrower, instead of realizing an adjusting loan amount from Insurance Company, the Bank initiated action for recovery of rest of the loan amount. The petitioner approached before the authorities with a request tha due to death of her husband and as per agreement, the loan amoutn is required to be paid by the Insurance Company, however, the claim as made by the petitioner has been rejected. Now, the respondents are initiating arbitration proceedings and are further not clearing the death claim policy in respect of husband of the petitioner, who died in Covid-19 and in spite of knowing all these things, the arbitration proceeding is 3 / 13 being initiated against the petitioner, whereas, according to agreement entered into between the parties, the rest of the loan amount would have been adjusted and claimed through the insurer i.e. respondent No.2. 3. The petitioner has sought for following relief(s) :- “10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be please to set aside/quash the letter dated 16.12.2021 (Annexure P/1). 10.2 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue the writ of Mandamus/or of like nature, directing the respondent no.2 herein to honour the claim of petitioner, in respect to the policy no.35003237. 10.3 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to call the records pertaining to the case of petitioner. 10.4 Any other relief may also be granted by this Hon’ble Court in facts and circumstances of the case.” 4.
Legal Reasoning
judgment passed by this Court in the matter of Mangali Mahinag v. Sushila Sahu and others passed in Writ Appeal No.455/2022 decided on 15.09.2022. 7. Learned counsel for respondent No.3 submits that the role of Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority of India (for short, ‘IRDAI’) is very limited and it regulates the terms and conditions of the Insurance Company. It does not adjudicate the complaint and if there is any deficienty of service or breach of terms and conditions of contract, the petitioner has to approach before the appropriate Court/Authority. He futher submits that there is a system namely “Bima Bharosa, Integrated Grievances Managment System (for short, ‘IGMS’), where any policy holder 6 / 13 can register his/her grievance/complaint, which will be fiagged to the Insurance Company for quick resolution. It has been contended taht the complaint of the petitioner has already been registered in Bima Bharosa on 24.12.2022 vide Token No.11-22- 024090 and the petitioner can pursue the said complaint. No case is made out against respondent no.3 and accordingly, the petition against respondent No.3 is required to be dismissed. 8. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties at length and considered their rival submissions made herein and gone through the record thoroughly and extensively. 9. The grievance of the petitioner is mainly against respondent No.2, who has insured the vehicle, which was purchased by Late husband of the petitioner. The further grievance of the petitioner is that after death of original owner of the vehicle i.e. Tractor in Covid-19, the liability should have been upon the Insurance Company to pay the rest of the loan amount. When an information regarding the same has been submitted, instead of redressing the same and paying the loan amount in respect of Late husband of the petitioner, an arbitration proceeding has been initiated and further, notice for production of the vehicle has been issued to the petitioner. 10. From the relief(s) as sought by the petitioner in this petition, it seems that the matter relates to dispute between consumer and the Insurance Company. It furhter transpires that there are disputed questions of fact, which are required to be adjudicated 7 / 13 as per Section 2(42) of the C.P. Act. The Insurance Company also comes within the defintion of “Service Provider”. Section 2(42) of the C. P. Act reads as follows:- “2(42) "service" means service of any description which is made available to potential users and includes, but not limited to, the provision of facilities in connection with banking, financing, insurance, transport, processing, supply of electrical or other energy, telecom, boarding or lodging or both, housing construction, entertainment, amusement or the purveying of news or other information, but does not include the rendering of any service free of charge or under a contract of personal service.” 11. The case of the petitioner also ordereffect that since loan of the vehicle was insured, as such Insurance Company would liable to pay entire amount of loan due to demise of deceased owner of the Tractor, who has taken loan. 12. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Kishore Lal (supra), the definition of “Consumer” has been eloborated and held as follows :- “7. The definition of 'consumer' in the CP Act is apparently wide enough and encompasses within its fold not only the goods but also the services, bought or hired, for consideration. Such consideration may be paid or promised or partly paid or partly promised under any system of deferred payment and includes 8 / 13 any beneficiary of such person other than the person who hires the service for consideration. The Act being a beneficial legislation, aims to protect the interests of a consumer as understood in the business parlance. The important characteristics of goods and services under the Act are that they are supplied at a price to cover the costs and generate profit or income for the seller of goods or provider of services. The comprehensive definition aims at covering every man who pays money as the price or cost of goods and services. However, by virtue of the definition, the person who obtains goods for resale or for any commercial purpose is excluded, but the services hired for consideration even for commercial purposes are not excluded. The term 'service' unambiguously indicates in the definition that the definition is not restrictive and includes within its ambit such services as well which are specified therein. However, a service hired or availed, which does not cost anything or can be said free of charge, or under a contract of personal service, is not included within the meaning of 'service' for the purposes of the CP Act.” 13. Further in the matter of Skypak Couriers Ltd. (supra), the Hon’ble has held as follows :- “2. With the industrial revolution and development in the international trade and commerce, there has been a substantial increase of business and trade, which 9 / 13 resulted in a variety of consumer goods appearing in the market to cater to the needs of the consumers. The modern methods of advertisement in media, influence the mind of the consumers notwithstanding the manufacturing defect imperfection in the quality, a consumer is tempted to purchase the goods. There has been possibility of deficiency in the services rendered. For the welfare of such consumer and to protect the consumers from the exploitation to provide protection of the interest of the consumers, Parliament enacted the Consumer Protection Act, and the Act itself makes provision for the establishment of Commissions for settlement of the consumer disputes and matters connected therewith. The Commissions, under the Act, are quasi-judicial bodies and they are supposed to provide speedy and simple redressal to consumer disputes and for that purpose, they have been empowered to give relief of a specified nature and in an appropriate way, to award compensation........” 14. Since, there is alternative remedy available to the petitioner to approach before the Consumer Forum under the C.P. Act for
Arguments
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the action on the part of the respondents authority especially respondent No.1 and 2 are per se illegal. When the husband of the petitioner has taken insurance policy with respondent No.2 in respect of loan taken from respondent No.1-Bank, the Insurance Company is under liablity to pay rest of the loan amount on the event of death of husband of the petitioner, who has taken loan. When the husband of the petitioner has alive, he has paid installments of the loan, 4 / 13 however, due to pandemic Covid-19, the husband of the petitioner became critically ill and died. When the family members of the petitioner have approched to respondents No.1 and 2 for final settlement of their claim, which is required to be paid by respondent No.2, it was not settled and they have send a demand notice of Rs.4,41,453/-. After reciept of demand notice, when the petitioner filed a reply stating all the facts and prayed for adjusting the loan amount with the Insurance Company as an insurance was taken by the Insurance Company, however, inspite of addressing the grievance of the petitioner, respondent No.1 has initiated the arbitration proceeding and that too in the name of the deceased husband of the petitioner for total claim of Rs.5,36,721/-. Further the petitioner was directed to produce the vehicle notice dated 27.08.2022, which is illgal and arbitrary. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No.1 submits that they have only disbursed loan to the husband of the petitioner and in so far as insurance is concerned, the insurer would be respondent No.2, as such he is answerable to the dispute. 6. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 opposes the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner and submits that the petition itself is not maintainable as the dispute which has been raised by the petitioner is amenable before the Consumer Dispute Rederssal Commission under Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (for short, “C. P. Act”). He further submits that the petitioner has challenged a claim of insurance policy, which is cosumer 5 / 13 dispute, as such it is redressed by the concerned Consumer Forum. The relief as sought for by the petitioner comes under the purview of “Service”, as defined under Section 2(42) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 and as such, it cannot be adjudicated under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner has to approch before the Consumer Forum for redressal of her grievance, however instead of approaching the concerned Consumer Forum, she has approached before this Court, which is not in accordance with law. He has placed reliance upon the judgments rendered by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matters of Kishore Lal v. Chairman, Employees’ State Insurance Corporation, (2007) 4 SCC 579, Skypak Couriers Ltd. v. Tata Chemicals Ltd., (2000) 5 SCC 294 as well as the
Decision
redressal of her grievance, the writ petition as framed and filed cannot be decided by this Court. The petitioner should have approached before the Consumer Forum where alternative remedy lies. 15. Recently, in the matter of Mangali Mahinag (supra), this Court 10 / 13 has held as under :- “.16. In Durga Enterprises (P) Ltd. (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court had observed that the High Court having entertained the writ petition, in which pleadings were also complete, ought to have decided the case on merits instead of relegating the parties to a civil suit. What cannot be lost sight of the fact is that the writ petition was pending for a long period of 13 years. The aforesaid case does not lay down as a proposition that invariably whenever a writ petition is admitted, it has to be heard on merit and the writ Court cannot exercise discretion to relegate the petitioner to avail alternative remedy. 17. In Uttar Pradesh Rajya Khanij Vikas Nigam Sangharsh Samiti (supra), it was observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that issuance of rule nisi or passing of interim orders is a relevant consideration for not relegating the petitioner to avail alternative remedy if it appears to the High Court that the matter could be decided by a writ Court. It was observed that there is no proposition in law that once a writ petition is admitted, it could never be dismissed on the ground of alternative remedy. 18. In Genpact India Private Limited (supra), the decision in Uttar Pradesh Rajya Khanij Vikas Nigam Sangharsh Samiti (supra) was taken note of. 19. A perusal of the aforesaid two judgments 11 / 13 would go to show that as a proposition of law it cannot be countenanced that once a writ petition is entertained and admitted, the same cannot be dismissed on the ground of availability of the alternative remedy at the time of hearing. In that view of the matter, the contention of Mr. Kesharwani fails. 20. Having regard to the nature of the dispute raised, we are of the considered opinion that it is not a case where the writ Appellate Court ought to exercise discretion to entertain the writ petition. We find no infirmity with the view taken by the learned Single Judge for relegating the petitioner to avail alternative remedy. 21. Accordingly, the writ appeal fails and is dismissed........” 16. Upon perusal of the record and careful consideration of the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner, this Court finds that the principal grievance of the petitioner is directed against respondent No.2 – the Insurance Company, alleging that after the unfortunate demise of her husband, who had purchased the vehicle and insured the same, the Insurance Company ought to have discharged the outstanding loan liability. It is further the case of the petitioner that instead of redressing her grievance, the Insurance Company has chosen to initiate arbitration proceedings and issued a notice for production of the vehicle. 17. From a bare reading of the reliefs sought in this petition, it is evident that the dispute essentially arises between the petitioner, 12 / 13 who claims the status of a consumer, and respondent No.2, the Insurance Company, which squarely falls within the ambit of a 'service provider' as defined under Section 2(42) of the C.P. Act. The said provision explicitly includes insurance services within its ambit. Therefore, the grievance of the petitioner pertains to an alleged deficiency in service on the part of the Insurance Company in respect of its failure to honour the insurance policy upon the death of the insured. 18. Further, this Court is of the considered opinion that the issues raised by the petitioner involve disputed questions of fact, including the interpretation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy, the scope of coverage, and the liability of the Insurance Company towards discharge of the outstanding loan upon the demise of the insured. Such disputed factual issues cannot be appropriately adjudicated within the limited jurisdiction of a writ Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. These are matters which necessarily require appreciation of evidence, examination of contractual obligations, and determination on merits, which can only be effectively addressed by the Consumer Forum constituted under the C.P. Act. 19. Considering the law laid down in the matters of Kishore Lal (supra) and Skypak Couriers Ltd. (supra), where an efficacious alternative statutory remedy exists, writ jurisdiction should not ordinarily be invoked, unless there are exceptional circumstances such as violation of fundamental rights, or jurisdictional error, 13 / 13 none of which are pleaded or established in the present case. 20. In view of the availability of a specific and efficacious alternative remedy before the Consumer Forum, and considering the nature of the dispute which involves adjudication of facts, this Court is not inclined to exercise its discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 21. Accordingly, this Court finds no merit in the present petition. The writ petition, being devoid of substance, is hereby dismissed. However, liberty is granted to the petitioner to approach the appropriate Consumer Forum under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 for redressal of her grievance, if so advised and permissible under law. No order as to costs. Yogesh Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge