This revision is directed against the order of the Bihar State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Patna (in short, “the State Commission”) dated 25.4.2016 in first appeal No.168/2012. 2. Briefly stated, facts relevant for the disposal of the revision petition are that late Shri Amrender Jha opened 8 term deposit accounts in “Rajat Yojna” floated by the petitioner/opposite party. The respondent was nominee in the said deposits scheme. As per the terms and conditions of the deposit scheme in the event of death of the depositor the opposite party was required to pay to the nominee the agreed value of the deposit after appropriating the loss of interest. It was also the condition of the deposit that in the event of death of the depositor between the age of 15 to 65 years the nominee of the depositor was assured death benefit help for 82 months. It is the case of the respondent/complainant that after the death of the depositor Shri Amrender Jha he approached the opposite party No.1 i.e. M/s Sahar India Finance Corporation Ltd. for payment against the deposits as also the death health as per the contract of deposit. The petitioner/opposite party No.1 made payment against the term deposit to the respondent/complainant but death help claim was not settled. Being aggrieved, the respondent/complainant raised the consumer dispute by approaching the District Forum, Madhubani claiming that the age of the depositor at the time of death was 57 years. 3. The opposite party on being served with the notice of the complaint, filed written statement justifying the non-grant of death help on the plea that as per the voter card of the depositor Shri Amrender Jha, his age at the time of death was more than 65 years and as such the respondent was not entitled to the death help. 4. The District Forum on evaluation of the evidence allowed the complaint and directed as under: “In the light of the discussion made above, we direct the OPs to pay the death help claim to the complainant in view of Section-D of the prospectus of the company after obtaining personal guarantee from the complainant from 15th day of April, 2012 (every month) for a period of 82 months, continuously, whatever legally the death help was due and to pay Rs.5,000/- (five thousand) compensation and Rs.1,000/- (one thousand) litigation cost by 15th of April, 2012. If the aforesaid direction is not complied within the period stipulated then the entire amount will be realized imposing 12% penal interest from the date of filing this case till its realization through the process of Court.” 5. Being aggrieved of the order the petitioner filed an appeal. The State Commission, Bihar on re-evaluation of evidence did not find fault with the order of the District Forum. The appeal was consequently dismissed. The sole basis for dismissing the appeal was that as per the service record of the deceased applicant his age was 57 years at the time of the death. 6. Learned Ms. Sonali Dhir, Advocate for the petitioner has contended that the impugned orders of the Fora below are not sustainable for the reason that both the Fora below have committed a grave error in relying upon the copy of the service book of the deceased applicant which is not the authentic proof of date of birth or the age. It is further argued that the Fora below ought to have taken note of the voter card of the deceased which clearly shows that the age of the deceased at the time of death was more than 65 years. 7. We do not find merit in the contention. From perusal of record it is evident that there was a dispute between the parties regarding the age of the depositor on the date of his death. The complainant in order to prove the age of the depositor has relied upon the service record of the deceased depositor who is employed in Tata Iron & Steel Co. Ltd. whereas the petitioner/opposite party had relied upon the date of birth mentioned in the voters card of the deceased. Both the Foras below on appreciation of evidence pertaining to age of the depositor have preferred to rely upon the entry in the service book of the depositor instead of the entry in the voter card of the deceased. Ordinarily, the best evidence for the proof of age is the Date of Birth or the School Leaving Certificate. In the instant case, neither birth certificate nor School Leaving Certificate of the deceased depositor was produced in evidence. Thus, the Fora below was left with to choose between the entry regarding age of the deceased in his service record or the entry regarding age given in the voter list. In our considered view, the Fora below have not committed any material irregularity by giving preference to the entry in the service record because in big company like Tata Iron & Steel. Co. Ltd while employing, proof of age is sought. The impugned order, therefore, cannot be faulted on this count. 8. The second ground for assailing the impugned order is that the State Commission has ignored that prior to the passing of order by the State Commission the subject dispute was decided by the Arbitrator. In order to appreciate this argument, it is necessary to record certain facts. On perusal of copy of the consumer complaint filed on the record we find that it is stated to have been verified at Madhubani on 27.11.2007. From this it appears that consumer complaint was filed by the respondent somewhere around 27.11.2007. On perusal of the copy of the arbitration award dated 09.10.2011relied upon by the complainant we find that it records that in pursuance of the arbitration agreement entered into between the parties, the dispute was referred to the sole Arbitrator Shri Gyan Prakash, Advocate, Muzaffarpur vide letter dated 3.10.2008 of Shri A.K. Srivastava, Zonal Chief of the petitioner/opposite party, Muzaffarpur. This clearly indicates that the opposite party had referred the matter to arbitration much after the filing of the consumer complaint which is an alternative remedy available to the complainant under Section 3 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. On perusal of record it appears that opposite party while referring the dispute to the arbitrator did not mention that complainant has already raised a consumer dispute before the District Forum. Not only this, the opposite party did not even inform the District Forum that it has referred the subject dispute to arbitration of Sole Arbitrator Shri
Gyan Prakash, Advocate, Muzaffarpur. This conduct and concealment on the part of the opposite party amounts to abuse of process of law and amounts to practicing fraud upon the arbitrator as well as the consumer Fora. Thus, in our view, the opposite party is estopped from assailing the order of the State Commission on the plea that order could not have been passed in view of arbitration award passed in favour of the opposite party, which is earlier in time. 9. In view of the discussion above, we are of the opinion that conduct of the opposite party is nothing but the abuse of process of law. There is no reason to interfere with the concurrent finding of the Fora below in exercise of the revisional jurisdiction. Revision petition is accordingly dismissed. | 
