PER S.K. NAIK, MEMBER Challenge in this revision petition filed by the petitioners, who were the opposite parties before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Sri Ganganagar, Rajasthan (District Forum for short), is to the order dated 22nd of March, 2011 passed in First Appeals No. 1872 of 2008 and 1880 of 2008 by the Rajasthan State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Jaipur (State Commission for short), affirming the order dated 16.09.2008 of the District Forum directing the petitioners to pay to the respondents/complainants a sum of Rs.1.00 Lakh under the Farmers Securitization Scheme, after adjusting the balance amount due from deceased Angrez Singh on account of his agricultural loan, with interest @ 9% per annum w.e.f. 2nd of September, 2002 with a cost of Rs.1100/- each. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that deceased Angrez Singh had applied for certain agricultural loans from the 15, PTD, Gram Sewa Sahkari Samiti Ltd. (petitioner no.1/opposite party no.1) and the Ganganagar Kendriya Sahkari Bank Ltd. (petitioner no.3/opposite party no.3) for varied amounts. He had repaid the loans obtained by him during the period from 15.05.1999 to 23.06.1999 by 09.12.1999. He had again applied for loan on 15.12.1999, which was sanctioned by the petitioners. Angrez Singh, however, expired on 4th of March, 2000. Claiming that the death of Angrez Singh was due to an accident, his widow Smt. Charanjit Kaur filed a claim before the petitioners/opposite parties for payment of a sum of Rs.1.00 Lakh under the Agricultural Securitization Scheme. In that she also made a request for deducting the balance amount of loan due from her husband from the said amount of Rs.1.00 Lakh and pay the remaining amount to her. When no action on her request was taken by the petitioners/opposite parties, she alongwith her children filed a complaint before the District Forum, seeking a direction in that regard. The petitioners/opposite parties contested the complaint. The District Forum on consideration of the rival contentions of the parties passed an order in favour of the respondents/complainants, which was challenged by the petitioners/opposite parties before the State Commission, advancing, inter alia, an argument that the certificate dated 3rd of December, 2004 purporting to the death of Angrez Singh was on the basis of a report of the Ward Member and could not have been considered as a conclusive proof of the death of Angrez Singh and further questioned that the death was mot accidental. The State Commission entertained the objection of the petitioners/opposite parties and remanded the complaint back to the District Forum. The District Forum, after the remand and after providing adequate opportunities to both the parties to adduce any further evidence, reconsidered the matter but came to the same conclusion that the death of Angrez Singh was accidental and passed the order stated above. Aggrieved thereupon that the petitioners/opposite parties are before us in this revision petition. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. For the reasons stated in the application for condonation of delay, we condone the delay of 20 days in filing the revision petition. Shri Janesh Singh, Advocate assisted by Shri Tarun Shokeen, Advocate, appearing for the petitioners/opposite parties has contended that both the fora below have failed to consider that on the day of his death i.e. on 04.03.2000 Angrez Singh was not a loanee of the opposite party Bank as he had fully repaid the earlier loans with interest by the 9th of December, 1999. He was, therefore, not a beneficiary under the Scheme and thus, was not a ‘consumer’ to invoke the jurisdiction of the consumer fora. In the second limb of his argument, learned counsel has contended that the State Commission has erroneously relied upon the death certification of Sarpanch issued so belated after almost four years from the death of Angrez Singh discarding the statement of the deceased’s own brother that Angrez Singh died due to heart attack. Finally, the learned counsel has contended that as per the Scheme, the claim ought to have been filed within a period of thirty days from the date of the death, which has not been complied with in the instant case. We have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners/opposite parties. His first contention that the deceased Angrez Singh was not a loanee of the petitioners/opposite parties on the date of his death and was, therefore, not a ‘consumer’, has to be rejected for the simple reason that in their written version before the District Forum against the contention of the respondents/complainants that loan amount of Rs.34,580/- outstanding against the deceased be adjusted from the amount of Rs.1 Lakh has not been denied or contested. Moreover, even now in their revision petition before us it has been stated in para 3(iii) that “Angrez Singh again applied for loan on 15.12.1999 which was again sanctioned by the petitioner bank on 4.3.2000”. On the question of whether the death of Angrez Singh was accidental or otherwise, we find that the State Commission had earlier remanded back the matter to the District Forum to thoroughly consider the matter and on reconsideration the District Forum has given its finding, which now stands affirmed by the State Commission. The decision of the District Forum was based on the certificate given by the Sarpanch, which was supported by a series of affidavits filed on behalf of the complainants justifying the manner in which Angrez Singh had died, which conclusively proved that it was an accidental death. We see no reason to differ with the concurrent finding on this and the technical objections such as not filing an FIR, absence of post-mortem report and not filing the claim within thirty days will not make much of a difference to the case of the complainants. In view of the above, we find no merit in the revision petition warranting any interference by this Commission in exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction as there is neither any illegality, irregularity, much less any jurisdictional error in the order passed by the State Commission. The revision petition is, accordingly, dismissed with no order as to cost. |
