S. Parvatha Rao, President:
1. We do not find any merit in this application for leave to prefer appeal against the order of the Ranga Reddy District Forum in C.D. No. 170/1996 dated 9.11.1999.
2. The petitioner contends that she was the mother of the insured one Sri Nandyala Damodar Reddy and that the order of the District Forum affected her rights because she was excluded from a share in the insurance amount. It is not her case that she made any claim before the Insurance Company or that she complained of any deficiency in service towards her on the part of the Insurance Company. Her husband i.e., the father of the insured, was the guardian of the minor daughter and son of the insured. They represented by him. their paternal grand father, approached the Ranga Reddy District Forum by way of C.D. No. 170/1996 complaining that inspite of their lodging claim before the Life Insurance Corporation of India (âLIC for short) the L.I.C. did not settle their claim and, therefore, sought reliefs from the District Forum. The District Forum after hearing both sides and after considering all aspects of the matter directed the Insurance Company to pay the amount payable under the policy taken by the insured late Sri N. Damodar Reddy to the complainants before it and also costs of Rs. 2,000/-. It is not the case of the petitioner before us that she approached the District Forum at any time prior to its order dated 9.11.1999 in that C.D. Admittedly she was not a party to the proceedings in C.D. No. 170/1996 before the Ranga Reddy District Forum. Under those circumstances we are of the view that the decision of the Ranga Reddy District Forum does not in any way affect her rights as heir of late Sri Nandyala Damodar Reddy for claiming a share in the insurance amount directed to be paid to the complainants in that C.D. In fact her rights were not in any way adjudicated by the District Forum because she was not before the District Forum at any time. Under the circumstances we fail to see how she would be affected by the order of the District Forum to question it before us. The District Forum only adjudicated as regards the amount that the Insurance Company had to pay on the basis that there was a deficiency in service on its part to the complainants. In fact the Tribunals under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 do not have the jurisdiction to enquire into heirship under the Hindu Succession Act or other Succession Acts. It is for the Civil Court to adjudicate on those questions. In the circumstances we find that this application for leave to prefer an appeal before this Commission against the order of the Ranga Reddy District Forum in C.D. No. 170/1996 is misconceived. We make it clear that it is open to the petitioner to approach the Civil Court for adjudication of her rights over the amounts paid by the Insurance Company.
F.A. IA. No. 204/2000 is consequently dismissed.
F.A. IA. No. 204/2000 dismissed.