IN THE COURT OF DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL COMMISSION
WEST SINGHBHUM AT CHAIBASA
Present: - 1. Sri Vijai Kumar Sharma, President,
2. Sri Rajiv Kumar, Member,
3. Smt. Deoshree Choudhary, Member.
C. C. Case No.22/2014
Chaibasa, Dated: 05.08.2022
Smt. Geeta Mahato wife of Late Ishwar Kumar Mahato of Village Pondakata, P.O. Gopidih, P.S. Kuchai, District Seraikella-Kharsawan, Jharkhand ………..………………………………………………..….Complainant
Vs.
- Branch Manager, Sahara India Ltd. Sector Office at Chakradharpur, District West Singhbhum, Jharkhand………………………….….O.P. No.1
- Branch Manager, Regional Office Jamshedpur, District East Singhbhum, Jharkhand ……………………………...…………………O.P. No.2
- Branch Manager, Sahara India Ltd. Sahara India Bhawan, Kapurtala Complex, Lucknow-226024 (U.P.)……………………….O.P. No.3
Learned Counsel for the Complainant…….Sri Kishore Kumar Mahato, Advocate.
Learned Counsel for the O.P. No.1…………..Sri Amresh Kumar Sao, Advocate.
Learned Counsel for the O.P. No.2…………..Not Appeared.
Learned Counsel for the O.P. No.3…………..Not Appeared.
Judgment
Complainant Smt. Geeta Mahato wife of Late Ishwar Kumar Mahato resident of Village Pondakata, P.O. Gopidih, P.S. Kuchai, District Seraikella-Kharsawan, Jharkhand has filed this case against (1) Branch Manager, Sahara India Ltd. under office Chakradharpur District West Singhbhum, Jharkhand, (2) Branch Manager, Regional Office Jamshedpur, District East Singhbhum, Jharkhand, and (3) Branch Manager, Sahara India Ltd. Sahara India Bhawan, Kapurtala Complex, Lucknow-226024 (U.P.) Opposite Party for an award of Rs.300000.00 including compensation for mental and physical harassment caused by the the O.P. showing deficiency of service.
Briefly stated case of the, above named, complainant is that O.Ps. are financial non banking company having registered Head office in Sahara India on Sahara India Ltd. Sahara India Bhawan, Kapurtala Complex, Lucknow-226024 (U.P.) and its branch office at Chakradharpur District West Singhbhum, Jharkhand. Further that Late Ishwar Kumar Mahato Complainant’s husband was a medical practitioner at Village Pondakata, P.O. Gopidih, P.S. Kuchai, District Seraikella-Kharsawan, Jharkhand and one Makhan Lal Mahato is agent of Sahara India. Makhan Lal Mahato made contact with the complainant’s husband Late Ishwar Kumar Mahato residents of Village Pondakata and asked him to become member of the housing scheme (Rajat Yojna) and he also convinced that it is also effective scheme and pursued complainant’s husband for becoming member of above scheme after paying Rs.7000.00 only. Further that husband of the complainant stood influenced by the proposal given by, above named, agent and complainant’s husband gave Rs.7000.00 to the agent and agent took signature of complainant’s husband on certain form and slip of deposit money. Thereafter, above named ,agent deposited Rs.7000.00 only in Sahara India Branch Chakradharpur and thereafter, above named agent also gave all the documents relating scheme including pass book showing receipt of Rs.7000.00 in favour of her husband. Further case of the complainant is that her husband did not receive any notice regarding the allotment of any plot of land or house under the Sahara Housing Scheme and during running of the scheme complainant’s husband died on 12.04.2012 in motor vehicle accident for which information has given in the concerned Police Station and case was registered as Seraikella P.S. Case No.29/2012 corresponding to G. R. Case No.299/2012 which was pending in the court of Sri A. K. Singh, J.M. First Class at Seraikella further that on 23.05.2012 complainant gave information to the Branch Manager Chakradharpur about the death of her husband and demanded compensation from the O.P. as per the term and condition mentioned in the pass book which was given to complainant’s husband by the O.P.
Further that as per the term and condition of Sahara Rajat Yojana Scheme in case of death of depositor within a period of 4-10 yrs from the date of deposit of money, the nominee shall be given compensation of Rs.200000.00 from the O.P. and in this regard agent Laxmi Kant Mahato has also written a letter to the Branch Manager Sahara India Ltd. Chakradharpur branch and also recommended for payment of compensation of the claimant cum Complainant of this case. There after Mr. Sunil Kumar the then Branch Manager Sahara India Ltd. Chakradharpur branch sent surveyor report to the Regional office Jamshedpur and then Mr. Ranjeet Ranjan M/S worker Chaibasa wrote letter to the Regional Office Jamshedpur with recommend action for payment of compensation amount in this regard complainant visited office of the O.P. No.1 personally on several occasions but the O.P. No.1 diferred the matter on some pretext and in this way 8 months passed away and O.P. denied payment without disclosing the reason about nonpayment and no any written reason was given by the O.P. Then complainant filed a case on 09.07.2013 before the District Consumer Commission at Saraikela bearing number C.C 08/2013 and that case was dismissed by the Forum on describing lack of jurisdiction vide it's Order dated 06.09.2013.
Further that O.P has caused deficiency of service by not paying compensation amount to the complainant without any reason and complainant has filed instant case for an award for Rs.300000.00 including compensation to wards mental and physical harassment caused by O.P. to the complainant. Further that this court has got jurisdiction under the Consumer Protection Act and Complainant is Consumer under the preview of Consumer Protection Act and accordingly she has prayed for required relief from the O.P.
After admission notice was issued to the O.P who has appeared in this case and show cause has been filled on behalf of the O.P with intension to contest the case. It has been stated in the written statement/show cause that case of the complainant is abuse of the process of law, not maintainable and no cause of action exist in favour of the complainant. Further show cause reveals that in para 4 it has been stated on behalf of the O.P that scheme taken by the husband of complainant was under Silver Year Labh Yojna scheme for purchasing immoveable properties particularly housing unit, commercial unit, service of company subject to terms and conditions of the scheme and as per the terms and conditions after death of the advance booking holder the nominee cum Complainant was required either to get the amount transferred in her name or withdraw the payment of the advance amount along- with accrued interest and for this complainant was also required to approach the O.P and perform certain formalities as required as the terms and conditions of the scheme, but complainant has failed to do so despite several requests made by the O.P and under such circumstances O.P. is left with no other alternative except to deposit the payment due to inclusive of the accured interest on it and accordingly O.P. has deposited an account payee Cheque No.293901 dated 18.09.2014 for Rs.17162.00 of Allahabad Bank Chakradharpur branch in favour of the complainant against redemption of advance booking in full and final satisfaction of the deposit/investment amount made with the company and further that no payment remains due on the part of the answering. O.P in regard with the advance and further that complainant should be directed to receive the amount and case should be dismissed. Further legal ground has been taken by O.P that case is not maintainable as case is being time barred under the provisions of Section 24-A of Consumer Protection Act as case has been filled after passing of 2 year from the date of cause of action because death of complainant 's husband has been shown as 12.04.2012 and instant case has been filled before this Forum on 12.08.2014 i.e, certainly after expiry of prescribed limitations of 2 years and case of the complainant should be dismissed solely on this ground also.
Ground of non-joinder of necessary party has also been taken by the O.P by making averment that present case has been filled against branch manager Sahara India Ltd. Chakradharpur branch whereas the advanced booking of scheme under question against which the facility of accidental death claim runs under the Sahara India Corporation Ltd. having its corporate office in Lucknow and in such a way this corporate office should have been made party in this case. Finally prayer has been made to dismiss the complaint case with cost.
In support of the case complainant has furnished her affidavited evidence and affidavit evidence of Laxmi Kant Mahato and Manoj Kumar Mahato. Further documentary evidence has also been furnished and marked Exhibit in this case in favour of complainant which are as follows:-
1. Original passbook of Sahara India Commercial Corporation Ltd. in the name of complainant’s husband Ishwar Kumar Mahato, which has been marked as Exhibit 1.
2. Photocopy of order sheet of District Forum of Saraikela, which has been marked as Exhibit 2.
3. Photocopy of Postmortem Report of Ishwar Kumar Mahato, which has been marked as Exhibit 3.
4. Photocopy of Death Certificate of Ishwar Kumar Mahato, in two sheets, which has been marked as Exhibit 4.
5. Photocopy of receipt number 38571518129, which has been marked as Exhibit 5.
6. Original Copy of survey report of villagers, which has been marked as Exhibit 6 in 2 sheet.
7. Original Copy of application of Manoj Kumar Mahato, which has been marked as Exhibit 7.
8. Original Copy of application of Geeta Mahato, which has been marked as Exhibit 7 A.
9. Original Copy of application of Laxmi Kant Mahato, which has been marked as Exhibit 7 B.
10. Photocopy of application of Mr. Sunil Kumar Singh, Sahara India Ltd. which has been marked as Exhibit 8.
11. Original Copy of application of Ranjeet Ranjan, Sahara India, which has been marked as Exhibit 9.
On the other hand one Sunil Kumar Singh has filed affidavit in support of the show cause along with photocopy of several judgment of Hon’ble National Commission Dispute Redressal Commission, Jharkhand State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission and photo Copy of certified copy of order sheet dated 12.07.2013, 22.07.2013, 02.08.2013 and 06.09.2013 in support of the written statement. After hearing case has been fixed for judgment. Evidence adduced on behalf of both parties in this case will be besis for finding in this case.
FINDING
On perusal of the case record we find that complainant has supported her case by adducing affidavited evidence and affidavit evidence of witness Manoj Kumar Mahato and Laxmi Kant Mahato and documentary evidence has also been filed which are as follows:-
1. Original passbook of Sahara India Commercial Corporation Ltd. in the name of complainant’s husband Ishwar Kumar Mahato, which has been marked as Exhibit 1.
2. Photo Copy of Order sheet of District Forum of Saraikela, which has been marked as Exhibit 2.
3. Photo Copy of Post matom report of Ishwar Kumar Mahato,. which has been marked as Exhibit 3.
4. Photo Copy of Death Certificate of Ishwar Kumar Mahato, in two sheets, which has been marked as Exhibit 4.
5. Photo Copy of receipt number 38571518129, which has been marked as Exhibit 5.
6. Original Copy of survey report of villagers, which has been marked as Exhibit 6 in 2 sheet.
7. Original Copy of application of Manoj Kumar Mahato, which has been marked as Exhibit 7.
8. Original Copy of application of Geeta Mahato, which has been marked as Exhibit 7 A.
9. Original Copy of application of Laxmi Kant Mahato, which has been marked as Exhibit 7 B.
10. Photo Copy of application of Mr. Sunil Kumar Singh, Sahara India Ltd, which has been marked as Exhibit 8.
11. Original Copy of application of Ranjeet Ranjan, Sahara India, which has been marked as Exhibit 9.
On the other hand affidavit has been furnished in support of written-statement by one Sunil Kumar Singh Branch Manager Sahara India, Branch Office Chakradharpur in addition to that original account payee cheque of Allahabad Bank for Rs.17162.00 only dated 18.09.2014 has been furnished along with show-cause and which has been also mentioned as annexure 1. Further on perusal of the written-statement it is clear that O.P. has admitted investment of Rs.7000.00 by Late Ishwar Kumar Mahato complainant’s husband and only ground taken by the O.P. is that as per the term and condition of scheme after death of the Ishwar Kumar Mahato complainant should have get transferred the scheme in her name or she should have withdrawn the payment of advance amount along with the accrued interest and which has not been done by the complainant so for the interest of justice O.P. has deposited Cheque of Rs.17162.00 in favour of the complainant and so far as amount regarding death claim insurance is concerned, this case is not maintainable as case has been filed beyond the limitation period so case is barred by the law of limitation under 24-A of Consumer Protection Act and in support of the contention learned counsel for the O.P. has relied upon the decision given by the Hon’ble Apex Court, Hon’ble National Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission Dispute Redressal Court, Hon’ble Jharkhand State Dispute Redressal Commission Ranchi in several cases and prayer has been made to dismiss the case on the ground of limitation only.
On perusal of the case record we further find that after perusal of the show-cause a petition U/s 5 of Limitation Act has been filed by the complainant supported with affidavit and order dated 28.01.2015 passed by this Forum goes to so that no order has been passed on the petition rather petition was only kept on the record, since order of condonation of delay has not been passed on the above mentioned petition of the court, so mere filing of the condonation petition by the complainant in this case is not helpful regarding condonation of delay. Rather it will be presumed that delay has not been condoned by the court, so far as reported decisions are concerned on perusal of the reported decisions we find that Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s Kerala Agro Machinery Corporation Limited versus Vijay Kumar Roy and others reported in 2002 (3) CPR page 107 has laid down principle that if any complaint case is filed in the Consumer Forum beyond the period of 2 years from the date of cause of action then case will be deemed as time barred and any order or judgment passed by the Consumer Forum, State Commission or National Commission will be illegal. Similarly Hon’ble National Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission has also given principle in the case of Mahendra Singh through GPA Nitin Kumar versus Haryana Urban Development Authority through its Chief Administrator and another reported in 2011 (4) CPR Page No.107 (NC) that “Consumer Forum cannot decide a time barred complaint”
Hon’ble Jharkhand State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission in its judgment dated 31.10.2008 and 25.08.2011 passed in two different cases has relied upon above principle of Hon’ble Supreme Court and Hon’ble National Commission and also has been pleased to hold principle that if the case is filed under the Consumer Protection Act beyond the two years from the date of cause of action this case will be deemed time barred and not be maintainable. Further Section 24-A of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 also provide following provisions: -
- The District Forum, The State Commission or The National Commission shall not admit a complaint unless it is filed within 2 years from the date on which the cause of action has arisen.
- Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), a complaint may be entertained after the period specified in sub-section (1), if the complainant satisfies the District Forum, The State Commission or The National Commission, as the case may be, that he had sufficient cause for not filing the complaint within such period:
Provided that no such complaint shall be entertained unless The National Commission, The State Commission or The District Forum, as the case may be, records its reasonsfor condoning such delay.
After perusal of the provision of section 24-A of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 as well as going through the decision of the Hon’ble Court and Commissions we find that complainant has initially filed case before President District Forum at Seraikella for required relief and case stood registered as C.C. No.8/2013 and her case was dismissed on 06.09.2013 on the ground that case is barred by want to jurisdiction. U/s 11(2) of the Consumer Protection Act 1986. After procuring certified copy of order dated 12.07.2013, 22.07.2013, 22.08.2013 and 06.09.2013 instant case has been filed by the complainant before Consumer Forum Chaibasa on 12.08.2014. On perusal of the complaint petition it appears that death of date of Ishwar Kumar Mahato has been shown as 12.04.2012 by Motor vehicle accident and this date has been mentioned as cause of action although initial case before the Seraikella Forum was filed by the complainant within time but certified copy of order sheet dated 06.09.2013 passed by the then President Seraikella Consumer Forum goes to so that case has been merely dismissed U/s 11(2) of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 without giving liberties to file the case before the competent court having its jurisdiction and therefore complainant again chosen to file instant case before this Forum on 12.08.2014 without petition to condone delay caused in this case. It is clear from the above mentioned date i.e, 12.04.2012 as date of cause of action and filing date is 12.08.2014 which is almost 4 months delay beyond the period of 2 years.
So on the basis of above finding and discussion we have arrived at the reasonable conclusion that so far as investment money Rs.7000.00 made by Late Ishwar Kumar Mahato under Rajat Yojna of Sahara India is concerned that money has been returned by the O.P. along with accrued interest amount i.e, Rs.17162.00 and the same has been returned through account payee cheque in favour of the complainant Smt. Gita Mahato and same cheque has been received by the Smt. Gita Mahato on 21.11.2014 incompliance of the order dated 21.11.2014 passed by this court. But so far as insurance amount of the death claim of Rs.200000.00 is concerned that matter cannot be decided in this case because case of the complainant is clearly time barred which has been filed without delay condonation petition and not within the two years from the date of shown cause of action. So finally we are of the view that case of the complainant it is not maintainable in its present form rather the same is barred by the limitation U/s 24-A of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 and further that complainant is not entitled for any relief rather case of the complainant is worthy for dismissal.
Accordingly it is therefore.
ORDER
That the case of the complainant is dismissed on contest but without cost. Let copy of this judgment be furnished to both parties free of cost for their information.
(Rajiv Kumar) (Smt. Deoshree choudhary) (Vijai Kumar Sharma)
Member Member President
