CWP-18615-202 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA 111 INDUSIND NIPPON LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED ARUNA SACHDEVA AND OTHERS CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE Present:- Mr. Sanjeev Goyal, Advocate, Mr. Adhiraj Bhandari, Advocate and TRIBHUVAN DAHIYA The petition has been filed the order dated Disputes Redressal Commission, Chandigarh, FA/287/2025, directing liquidation of amounting ₹12, State Commission mandamus has been sought directing the third respondent statutory pre-deposit of the aforesaid amount in FDRs till final adjudication of the second appeal statedly filed by the petitioner before the Consumer Dispute 2. Learned counsel contended that the complaint filed by the first respondent before the District Commission vide order dated to refund the entire insurance premium respondents/complainant 2026 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP Date of Decision: INDUSIND NIPPON LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED Versus ARUNA SACHDEVA AND OTHERS CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TRIBHUVAN DAHIYA Mr. Sanjeev Goyal, Advocate, Mr. Adhiraj Bhandari, Advocate and Mr. Saurav Goyal, Advocate for the petitioner. TRIBHUVAN DAHIYA, J. (Oral) The petition has been filed seeking a writ of the order dated 21.04.2026, passed by the third respondent Redressal Commission, Chandigarh, , directing liquidation of Fix 12,53,131.17, the amount deposited by the petitioner State Commission during pendency of the fir has been sought directing the third respondent deposit of the aforesaid amount in FDRs till final adjudication of second appeal statedly filed by the petitioner before the Disputes Redressal Commission. Learned counsel contended that the complaint filed by the first before the District Commission, CC/ vide order dated 01.07.2025, directing the petitioner (opposite party to refund the entire insurance premium complainants along with interest. IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP-18615-2026 Date of Decision: 07.07.2026 INDUSIND NIPPON LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED …Petitioner(s) …Respondent(s) TRIBHUVAN DAHIYA Mr. Sanjeev Goyal, Advocate, Mr. Adhiraj Bhandari, Advocate Mr. Saurav Goyal, Advocate for the petitioner. seeking a writ of certiorari quashing third respondent - State Consumer Redressal Commission, Chandigarh, in MA/22/2026 in ixed Deposit Receipts (FDRs) unt deposited by the petitioner before the first appeal. Further, a writ of has been sought directing the third respondent to retain the deposit of the aforesaid amount in FDRs till final adjudication of second appeal statedly filed by the petitioner before the National Learned counsel contended that the complaint filed by the first , CC/05/2025, was partly allowed , directing the petitioner (opposite party therein) to refund the entire insurance premium amounting ₹9,29,669 to the along with interest. The petitioner challenged the Mr. Sanjeev Goyal, Advocate, Mr. Adhiraj Bhandari, Advocate quashing State Consumer in (FDRs) before the Further, a writ of to retain the deposit of the aforesaid amount in FDRs till final adjudication of National Learned counsel contended that the complaint filed by the first partly allowed ) 9,29,669 to the The petitioner challenged the AMAN DUA 2026.07.14 14:53 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this judicial document CWP-18615-202 order before the State Commission, and during its directions issued, the entire outstanding Commission ₹6,33,053.16. The appeal was finally dismissed vide order date and the petitioner challenged the same before the National Commission; filing slip, Annexure P Sometime later, the respondents/complainant State Commission seeking release of the amount application was allowed release of FDRs in favour of the respondents/complainant furnishing indemnity bonds to indemnify the petitioner/judgment debtor terms of the order of the National Commission, if any, passed in appeal. Learned counsel further contended that violation of Sections 71 and 72 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 State Commission is not seized of the matter any longer already approache that pursuant to been released to the respondents/complainants National Commission has not granted any State Commission 3. In view of the aforementioned facts, this Court is of the considered view that there is no ground to entertain the petition when the impugned order dated 21.04.2026 releasing the awarded amount to the respondents/complainants subject to furnishing the indemnity bonds in terms therewith. 2026 -2- order before the State Commission, and during its issued, the entire outstanding amount was deposited in the form of two FDRs . The appeal was finally dismissed vide order date and the petitioner challenged the same before the National Commission; filing Annexure P-7, has been attached with the petition to establish the Sometime later, the respondents/complainants State Commission seeking release of the amount was allowed vide impugned order dated release of FDRs in favour of the respondents/complainant furnishing indemnity bonds to indemnify the petitioner/judgment debtor terms of the order of the National Commission, if any, passed in Learned counsel further contended that violation of Sections 71 and 72 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 State Commission is not seized of the matter any longer already approached the National Commission. that pursuant to passing of the order dated 21.04.2026 released to the respondents/complainants National Commission has not granted any stay on the order passed by the State Commission. In view of the aforementioned facts, this Court is of the view that there is no ground to entertain the petition when the impugned order dated 21.04.2026 the awarded amount to the respondents/complainants subject to the indemnity bonds in terms therewith. order before the State Commission, and during its pendency in terms of amount was deposited with the amounting ₹6,20,078.01 and . The appeal was finally dismissed vide order dated 06.01.2026, and the petitioner challenged the same before the National Commission; filing 7, has been attached with the petition to establish the fact. s filed an application before the State Commission seeking release of the amount lying in the FDRs and the gned order dated 21.04.2026, directing the release of FDRs in favour of the respondents/complainants subject to furnishing indemnity bonds to indemnify the petitioner/judgment debtor in terms of the order of the National Commission, if any, passed in the second Learned counsel further contended that release of the amount is in violation of Sections 71 and 72 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, as the State Commission is not seized of the matter any longer and the petitioner has National Commission. He, however, does not dispute 21.04.2026, the amount has already released to the respondents/complainants. It is also not disputed that the stay on the order passed by the In view of the aforementioned facts, this Court is of the view that there is no ground to entertain the petition, especially has already been executed by the awarded amount to the respondents/complainants subject to the indemnity bonds in terms therewith. The petition, accordingly, pendency in terms of with the and , and the petitioner challenged the same before the National Commission; filing . filed an application before the and the the subject to in second is in , as the and the petitioner has He, however, does not dispute , the amount has already at the stay on the order passed by the In view of the aforementioned facts, this Court is of the especially has already been executed by the awarded amount to the respondents/complainants subject to The petition, accordingly, AMAN DUA 2026.07.14 14:53 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this judicial document CWP-18615-202 stands disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to raise this plea before National Commission in accordance with law 07.07.2026 Ad 2026 -3- stands disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to raise this plea before National Commission in accordance with law, if so advised Whether speaking/reasoned Whether reportable stands disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to raise this plea before the , if so advised. (TRIBHUVAN DAHIYA) JUDGE Yes/No Yes/No the ) AMAN DUA 2026.07.14 14:53 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this judicial document