1. This Application has been moved which the learned Counsel seeks to withdraw having mentioned that this has been filed in extreme peculiar circumstances.

2. The State Commission in Consumer Complaint No. 25 of 2008 had passed an order partly allowing the Complaint in favour of the Complainant against which Life Insurance Corporation being aggrieved filed an Appeal No.778 of 2013 and the Complainant also filed an Appeal No. 297 of 2014.

3. This Commission dismissed the Appeal filed by the Life Insurance Corporation and allowed the Appeal filed by the Complainant with a direction to make the payments as indicated in the order.

4. Aggrieved by the final order of this Commission dated 03.11.2021 the Life Insurance Corporation preferred by a Special Leave Petition No. 877 - 878 of 2022 that was dismissed on 28.01.2022 whereupon the Order of this Commission has become final.

5. We may point out that Orders passed by a Commission under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 are final and are only subject to an Appeal as per Section 24 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. With the introduction of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 the same provision, which is pari materia to Section 24, is incorporated in Section 68 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

6. Thus, finality stood attached to the Order passed by this Commission on 03.11.2021. The Application further discloses that it was later on found on a criminal investigation that a fraud had been played by the insured and to that affect a communication dated 16.11.2023 was received from the Police Sub Inspector, Crime Branch, Ahmedabad City addressed to the Senior Divisional Manager, LIC, Meerut stating that a case had been registered against Mr. Anilsingh Vijaypalsingh Malek (Chaudhary) and during the interrogation it was found that his real name was Mr. Anilkumar Vijaypalsingh Malek, resident of Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh and that he along with others had allegedly conspired in the year 2006 to obtain a LIC policy. The amount which was claimed was a fraudulent exercise by staging the death of another person posing as if he himself had died, and he in fact started living with another identity at Ahmedabad. The contention is that with these forged identity documents, the LIC had been defrauded in the manner aforesaid by the insured and therefore the present Application has been moved praying that the final order of this Commission dated 03.11.2021 be modified to the extent that the amount deposited by the LIC before the State Commission may be permitted to be withdrawn by the LIC in these changed circumstances.

7. Learned Counsel however states that if the application cannot be maintained before this Commission, as the Commission has become functus officio after the passing of the Order, and the SLP having been dismissed, he may be permitted to withdraw this Application and pursue his remedy either before the State Commission or before the appropriate forum as and when the stage of withdrawal of the amount arrives or even otherwise.

8. We may point out that the withdrawal of the amount is subject to execution proceedings and therefore as and when such proceedings are initiated it will be open to the Applicant to take any objections that may be permissible under law or even otherwise in the event no such remedy is available then recourse can be taken to the observations made by the Apex Court in the case of Ibrat Faizan versus Omaxe Buildhome Private Limited 2022 SCC OnLine SC 620 and Universal Sompo General Insurance Company Limited Versus Suresh Chand Jain and Anr. 2023 SCC OnLine SC 877.

9. The Application is therefore permitted to be withdrawn as observed above and is accordingly consigned.