ORDER

1.       Taken up through video conferencing.

2.       Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, Postal Department.

Perused the material on record.

3.       The matter relates to repudiation of a postal life insurance policy claim re one late Raj Singh. The respondent complainant Mrs. Poonam Devi is the widow of the said insured deceased Raj Singh.

4.       The District Forum vide its Order dated 04.07.2019 had allowed the complaint on contest. The operative paragraph of the District Forum’s Order is reproduced below:

5. In view of aforesaid observations and findings, we allow the present complaint of complainant with the directions to the OPs to release the assured amount as per policy document Ex. C-2 to the complainant within a period of 30 days after receiving the copy of this order, failing which said amount will carry an interest @9% p.a. from the date of filing the present complaint till its realization. As the OPs have repudiated the claim on vague and flimsy grounds for which  the complainant has to undergo mental harassment and agony, we also award a compensation of Rs. 21,000/- to the complainant on account of such mental agony and harassment so suffered by the complainant on account of negligent and deficient act of the OPs. We further direct the OP No. 1 to pay a further sum of Rs. 5500/- to the complainant on account of litigation expenses for the present unwanted and unwarranted litigation only due to the deficiency in service on the part of the OPs. The complaint stands disposed of accordingly.

(as per the translated copy furnished by the Postal Department)

5.       In first appeal, the State Commission passed an interim Order dated 06.03.2020, which is reproduced below:

                   Learned counsel for the respondent has placed on record the Power of Attorney.

                        Adjourned to 03.09.2020 for arguments.

                        In the meantime, the appellants shall deposit the awarded amount with the learned District Forum within 45 days from today. The said amount be thereafter disbursed to the respondent on her furnishing adequate security to the satisfaction of the learned District Forum.

                        (as per the certified copy furnished by the Postal Department)

6.       The instant revision petition has been filed against the said interim Order dated 06.03.2020 of the State Commission accompanied with an application for condonation of delay.  The number of days of delay has been left blank in the said application. However, in the interest of justice, to settle the case brought before this Commission on merit, the delay in filing the revision petition is condoned.

7.       It is noted that the State Commission has as yet to adjudicate on the first appeal filed before it. The impugned Order dated 06.03.2020 is but an interim order, a plain reading of which shows that the State Commission has but directed that the amount awarded by the District Forum shall be deposited by the Postal Department with the District Forum and that the District Forum shall disburse the same to the complainant on her furnishing adequate security to the satisfaction of the District Forum.

8.       It goes without saying that if the litigation by the Postal Department succeeds, the Postal Department would be free to recover the said amount from the complainant against the security furnished and/or by taking recourse to execution proceedings (‘enforcement’ and ‘penalties’, both), as per the law.

9.       Learned counsel for the petitioner Postal Department was specifically requested to provide any judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court or of this Commission, which proscribes such type of interim order(s) in a case of such texture and specificities. No such judgment was forthcoming from the learned counsel.

10.     In the light of the above (paras 7, 8 and 9), this Commission is not inclined to interfere, in this particular case, with the interim order dated 06.03.2020 of the State Commission, no jurisdictional error or legal principle ignored or miscarriage of justice is visible.

11.     It is made explicit that this Commission has consciously refrained from entering into or commenting on the merits in the case, since the first appeal before the State Commission has as yet to be adjudicated by the State Commission, on the facts and the law, on merit, and this Commission does not in any way want to colour the vision of the State Commission.

12.    With the above discussion, this petition is dismissed.

13.    Let a copy each of this Order be sent by the Registry to the State Commission and to the complainant within three days without fail.

14.    Disposed.