ORDER (Per: Justice B.C. Kandpal, President): Km. Upasana Mehta D/o Late Smt. Usha Mehta, R/o 8-B, Laxmi Road, Dehradun has filed this consumer complaint under Section 12 read with Section 18 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, alleging deficiency in service on the part of Life Insurance Corporation of India, Haridwar Road, Dehradun (for short “LIC”). In her consumer complaint, the complainant has prayed for the following reliefs:- a) The opposite party–LIC be directed to pay a sum of Rs. 20,39,693/- to the complainant. b) The opposite party be also directed to pay interest @ 16% per annum pendentlite and in future on the above amount. c) The opposite party be directed to pay a sum of Rs. 25,000/- towards cost of litigation. d) Any other relief which the Commission deems fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case be also awarded in favour of the complainant and against the opposite party. 2. The facts of the case, in brief, are that Smt. Usha Mehta, mother of the complainant, had taken two life insurance policies from the LIC for a risk of Rs. 50,000/- (policy No. 250418821) and Rs. 59,000/- (policy No. 250419227) on her own life. Smt. Usha Mehta died on 01.11.1994 leaving behind her a daughter Km. Upasana Mehta, the complainant, who was about two and a half years of age at that time. Since the complainant was a minor, one Sh. C.B. Singh was appointed as her guardian. Sh. C.B. Singh also expired on 09.09.2001. After that one Sh. Kamal Prasad was appointed the guardian of the complainant in her person and her property, for which she had obtained succession certificate. Sh. Kamal Prasad filed a consumer complaint before this Commission on 14.06.2005, alleging therein that the LIC should have paid the insured amount of the insurance policies together with bonus and other benefits to the complainant within a reasonable time, after the death of complainant’s mother and, thus, the opposite party has made deficiency in service. Accordingly, the complainant through her guardian Sh. Kamal Prasad filed a consumer complaint with a prayer for relief as stated above. 3. Notices were issued to the opposite party. Sh. Harish Chandra, Manager (Legal & HPF), LIC of India, Divisional Office, Dehradun represented the opposite party and engaged Sh. T.S. Bindra, Advocate, as its counsel. The complainant (through Sh. Kamal Prasad) was represented by Sh. Kamal Prasad filed a consumer complaint with a prayer for relief as stated above. 3. Notices were issued to the opposite party. Sh. Harish Chandra, Manager (Legal & HPF), LIC of India, Divisional Office, Dehradun represented the opposite party and engaged Sh. T.S. Bindra, Advocate, as its counsel. The complainant (through Sh. Kamal Prasad) was represented by Sh. J.K. Jain, Advocate. The opposite party filed the written statement, which is at paper Nos. 65 to 69. The complainant filed status report of insurance policy Nos. 250418821 and 250419227 as on 11.06.2005 (paper Nos. 7 to 8), succession certificate dated 05.10.1999 issued by the Additional District Judge, Dehradun in Miscellaneous Case No. 92 of 1996 in favour of Km. Upasana Mehta through her next friend and de facto guardian Sh. C.B. Singh (paper Nos. 9 to 13), extension of succession certificate dated 27.04.2000 (paper Nos. 14 to 42), order dated 19.09.2003 issued by the Family Court, Dehradun, whereby Sh. Kamal Prasad had been appointed as the guardian of the complainant and her property (paper Nos. 43 to 49). 4. The opposite party has submitted the following documents:- (a) Affidavit dated 20.02.2006 of Sh. Harish Chandra, Manager (Legal & HPF), wherein it is averred that Smt. Usha Mehta had taken two insurance policies for a sum of Rs. 50,000/- and Rs. 59,000/- respectively and had made Sh. Ajay Vidhya Bhanu, as an appointee under Section 39 of the Insurance Act. The complainant had lodged the claim belatedly and after lapse of several years and, thus, the claim is time barred. It has also been averred that Sh. Kamal Prasad had written a letter dated 30.09.2003 informing the opposite party that he has been appointed as the guardian of the minor (complainant) and also that the original insurance policies are not with him. Thereupon, the opposite party asked Sh. Kamal Prasad to seek amendment in succession certificate, but Sh. Kamal Prasad, instead of complying with the request of the opposite party, filed the consumer complaint before this Commission. (b) Proposal forms filled-in by Smt. Usha Mehta (paper Nos. 79 & 80), which indicate that the insurance policies taken by her were for Rs. 50,000/- and Rs. 59,000/- respectively and in both the insurance policies, she has nominated Sh. Ajay Vidhya Bhanu (Nephew) as her nominee. (c) Photocopy of the insurance policy No. 250419227 for Rs. 59,000/- at paper Nos. 84 to 85. 79 & 80), which indicate that the insurance policies taken by her were for Rs. 50,000/- and Rs. 59,000/- respectively and in both the insurance policies, she has nominated Sh. Ajay Vidhya Bhanu (Nephew) as her nominee. (c) Photocopy of the insurance policy No. 250419227 for Rs. 59,000/- at paper Nos. 84 to 85. (d) Letter dated 30.09.2003 sent by Sh. Kamal Prasad to LIC (paper No. 86), in which he had made the following request:- “Mrs. Usha Mehta has a minor daughter, Km. Upasana Mehta aged about 13 years. By the orders of the Court dated 20.09.2003, I have been appointed the legal guardian of Km. Upasana Mehta. A copy of the Court order is attached. Kindly inform me how I am to proceed in respect of the above policies. The original policies are not with me.” (e) Letter dated 17.11.2003 sent by Sh. Kamal Prasad toLIC, requesting therein that the payment against the insurance policy Nos. 250418821 and 250419227, which have been lost/misplaced and are irrecoverable, be made in favour of “Upasana Mehta A/c 14583, Bank of Baroda Astley Hall Dehradun.” 5. On 15.09.2006, learned counsel for the complainant filed the following documents:- (a) Application dated 10.11.2005 moved by Sh. Kamal Prasad before the District Judge, Dehradun for extension of succession certificate in respect of debts and securities (paper Nos. 94 to 95). (b) List of debts and securities of Late Smt. Usha Mehta (paper No. 96). (c) Order dated 26.04.2006 passed by the Learned Additional District Judge, FTC-VI, Dehradun in respect of the aforesaid debts and securities (paper No. 98). 6. Then there is an affidavit dated 16.11.2009 filed by Km. Upasana Mehta (paper Nos. 117 to 118), wherein she has averred that she has attained the age of 18 years on 21.03.2009 and she operates her saving bank account No. 016401013821 with ICICI Bank, Main Branch, Dehradun. 7. On 16.04.2012, the learned counsel for the complainant moved an application praying therein that in view of the affidavit dated 16.11.2009 filed by the complainant Km. Upasana Mehta, he be allowed to make an amendment in the consumer complaint to the effect that since the complainant has attained the age of majority, she has a right to contest the case herself. Upasana Mehta, he be allowed to make an amendment in the consumer complaint to the effect that since the complainant has attained the age of majority, she has a right to contest the case herself. Since, the opposite party failed to file any objection against this application, this Commission allowed the proposed amendment vide the order dated 13.09.2012, which reads as under:- “13.09.12 Learned counsel for the opposite party has moved an adjournment application. Learned counsel for the complainant has submitted that in this case, the time for filing the objections was granted to the learned counsel for the opposite party on 16.04.2012, but till today, no objections have been filed by the opposite party against the application dated 16.04.2012 moved by the complainant. We have considered the application dated 16.04.2012, which indicates that Km. Upasana Mehta – complainant has attained the age of majority during course of the case. Therefore, the complainant has sought the amendment that in the title of the consumer complaint, the words, “through guardian Sh. Kamal Prasad S/o late Sh. Kanta Prasad, R/o 8-B, Laxmi Road, Dehradun” be deleted. It has further been mentioned in the application that after para 10 of the consumer complaint, para 10A be added in the following manner: “ ;g fd ifjoknh nkSjku ifjokn o;Ld gks x;h gS] ftl dkj.k ifjoknh crkSj o;Ld mDr ifjokn dks vkxs pykus rFkk ifjokn esa çkfFkZr çfrdkj ikus dh vf/kdkjh gSA ” Having considered the submissions raised by the learned counsel for the complainant, we are of the view that there is no legal implication in allowing the amendment application. We accordingly allow the amendment application dated 16.04.2012. Learned counsel for the complainant is directed to incorporate the amendment in the memo of the consumer complaint during course of the day. Put up for final arguments on 18.12.2012.” 8. On 12.08.2013, learned counsel for the parties submitted their written arguments, which are at Paper Nos. 128 to 130 (from the side of complainant) and paper Nos. 131 to 135 (from the side of opposite party). The learned counsel for the parties also placed their oral submissions on 10.09.2013. 9. We went through the written arguments submitted by the learned counsel for the parties and also considered their oral submissions. We carefully perused all the evidences / documents submitted by the parties in support of their contention.6 10. The learned counsel for the parties also placed their oral submissions on 10.09.2013. 9. We went through the written arguments submitted by the learned counsel for the parties and also considered their oral submissions. We carefully perused all the evidences / documents submitted by the parties in support of their contention.6 10. The learned counsel for the complainant submitted that Sh. Kamal Prasad, legal guardian of the complainant, had written various letters to the opposite party for the release of payment against the said insurance policies taken by the complainant’s mother, so that the very purpose for which the policies were obtained, could be achieved, but the opposite party has retained the insured amount wrongfully, which has caused great harm to the complainant. He also submitted that all the objections raised by the opposite party are without any basis, because the succession certificate granted by the Court in favour of the complainant clearly mentions the details of the insurance policies. Sh. Kamal Prasad had submitted all the relevant documents to the opposite party, but the opposite party kept on denying to make payment under the said insurance policies on one ground or the other. The learned counsel submitted that now the complainant has attained majority in the year 2009 and, therefore, the objections raised by the opposite party itself become infructuous, but the opposite party has still not made any payment to the complainant. 11. The learned counsel for the opposite party submitted that after the death of the insured – Smt. Usha Mehta, her nominee Sh. Ajay Vidhya Bhanu should have lodged the claim within the stipulated time. The claim was lodged by Sh. Kamal Prasad on 30.09.2003. The consumer complaint was filed on 14.06.2005 and, thus, the same is barred by time. The learned counsel also submitted that the insurance policies in question are for Rs. 50,000/- and Rs. 59,000/- respectively, but the consumer complaint has been grossly overvalued, so as to bring it within the jurisdiction of this State Commission. Therefore, the consumer complaint is liable to be dismissed on this ground alone. It was also submitted that originally the consumer complaint was not filed by a competent person and that no claim was filed before the LIC till the year 2003, therefore, no liability of interest can be fastened on the opposite party. 12. Therefore, the consumer complaint is liable to be dismissed on this ground alone. It was also submitted that originally the consumer complaint was not filed by a competent person and that no claim was filed before the LIC till the year 2003, therefore, no liability of interest can be fastened on the opposite party. 12. The learned counsel, referring to the written statement filed by the opposite party, submitted that the insured had nominated Sh. Ajay Vidhya Bhanu as her nominee and, therefore, the amount was payable to the nominee. Further, as per law, father is the natural guardian of the minor, but Sh. Kamal Prasad did not disclose the whereabout of the complainant’s father. 13. Considering all the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that the objections raised by the learned counsel for the opposite party are technical in nature. The objection with regard to limitation is not sustainable, because the opposite party has failed to show us as to what was the stipulated time for submitting the insurance claim. The opposite party must consider the fact that the mother (life insured-Smt. Usha Mehta) of the complainant had died in the year 1994 and that time the complainant’s age was only two and a half years. The facts also indicate that the insurance policies were taken in the year 1990 and till then, the complainant had not born. Under these circumstances, everything got mismanaged. In such cases, the LIC should not expect that the claim should be filed within stipulated time. Of course, we agree with the opposite party’s pleading that the liability of interest should not be fastened on the LIC since no claim was made till the year 2003 and we also agree with the pleading that the consumer complaint appears to be grossly overvalued. But it would not be just to dismiss the consumer complaint at this stage on the ground that the amount claimed in the same is highly inflated, so as to bring the case under the pecuniary jurisdiction of this Commission. The opposite party should have filed this preliminary objection at the stage of admission of the consumer complaint and, in case, this Commission had admitted the same inspite of this preliminary objection, the opposite party should have challenged the decision of this Commission before the Hon’ble National Commission. The opposite party should have filed this preliminary objection at the stage of admission of the consumer complaint and, in case, this Commission had admitted the same inspite of this preliminary objection, the opposite party should have challenged the decision of this Commission before the Hon’ble National Commission. The consumer complaint pertains to the year 2005 and, therefore, it would not be just and proper to dismiss the same at this stage on this ground. Once a legal guardian has been appointed by a Court, the opposite party cannot say that the person so appointed is not competent to file the consumer complaint. In the succession certificate, both the insurance policies are mentioned. Further, if the Court has issued a succession certificate, then it is most unjust to make the queries about the nominee Sh. Ajay Vidhya Bhanu, complainant’s father etc. It is supposed that the Court had issued thesuccession certificate after making detailed enquiries about the applicant. Now the complainant has attained majority and this Commission had allowed amendment in the consumer complaint, as stated above. The insurance policies are not in dispute and the opposite party has itself admitted in its letter dated 17.05.2005 (paper No. 50) that the LIC is ready to make the payment under the insurance policies in question. The only condition that the LIC has laid down in this letter is that necessary amendment be made in the succession certificate. The said letter is addressed to Sh. Kamal Prasad. Now the complainant has become major and the Court has already issued the succession certificate in her favour, the LIC should not retain the insured amount. All the technical objections, which were being raised during the period the complainant was under the legal guardianship of Sh. Kamal Prasad, get subsided now and there is no point to withhold the amount payable under the insurance policies. 14. For the reasons aforesaid, the consumer complaint is partly allowed. The opposite party is directed to pay to the complainant – Km. Upasana Mehta the amount under the insurance policy Nos. 250418821 and 250419227 along with bonus and other benefits, as are admissible under these insurance policies and interest @ 7% per annum on the total amount payable to the complainant from the date of filing the consumer complaint till payment and Rs. 5,000/- towards costs of litigation within 30 days from the date of this order.