STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

First Appeal No  :      149 of 2015

Date of Institution:      11.02.2015

Date of Decision :       26.03.2015

1.      State of Haryana through Collector, Rohtak.

2.      Sub Divisional Magistrate (Civil), Rohtak.

3.      District Social Welfare Officer, Mini-Secretariat, Rohtak. 

                                      Appellants-Opposite Parties

Versus

Ishwar Singh s/o Sh. Bhup Singh, Resident of House No.1293/21, Prem Nagar, Rohtak.

                                      Respondent-Complainant

CORAM:             Shri B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member.

                             Shri Diwan Singh Chauhan, Member                                                                                                                                         

Present:              Shri R.K. Singla, AAG assisted by Shri Rajinder Kumar-Investigator, for appellants.   

                             Respondent in person.

                                                   O R D E R

B.M. BEDI, JUDICIAL MEMBER

This appeal has been preferred by opposite parties against the order dated October 27^th, 2014, passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (for short District Forum), Rohtak.  

2.      Kavita (since deceased)–wife of Ishwar Singh-complainant (respondent herein) died on April 10^th, 2012 due to the injuries suffered by her in a road side accident which occurred on March 29^th, 2012. After the accident, the deceased remained under treatment in ‘B.D. Sharma Post Graduate Institute of Medical Sciences’ (PGIMS), Rohtak with effect from March 29^th, 2012 to April 10^th, 2012. Daily Dairy Report Exhibit C-1 was recorded in Police Station, Rohtak. A Certificate Exhibit C-3 was issued from PGIMS, Rohtak stating therein as under:-

“Kavita w/o Sh. Ishwar Singh R/o Prem Nagar, Rohtak admitted on 29.03.2012 vide CR No.32760 with diagnosis Head Injury as a result of RSA died on 10.04.2012 in ICU.”

3.      The complainant filed an application Exhibit C-5 before the District Social Welfare Officer, Rohtak to grant her Rs.1.00 lac under ‘Rajiv Gandhi Pariwar Bima Yojna’ (for short ‘the Scheme’) issued by the Social Justice and Empowerment Department, Haryana vide notification dated 29^th April, 2004, but the same was rejected on the ground that Post Mortem Report (PMR) was not furnished by the complainant and so his claim was not covered under the Scheme. The compensation not being paid, he filed the instant complaint.

4.      The opposite parties in their joint written reply took objection that the complainant did not fall under the definition of ‘consumer’. They also reiterated the fact with respect to non-furnishing of PMR and thus denying the averments made in the complaint, prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

5.      Vide impugned order, the District Forum accepted complaint and issued direction to the opposite parties-appellants as under:-

“Accordingly, we hereby direct that the opposite party No.1 to 3 shall pay a sum of Rs.100000/- (Rupees one lac only) along with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing of the present complaint i.e. 15.07.2013 till its actual realization and shall also pay a sum of rs.2200/- (Rupees two thousand two hundred only) as litigation expenses to the complainant within one month from the date of decision failing which the opposite party no.1 to 3 shall be liable to pay interest @ 12% p.a. on the awarded amount of Rs.100000/- from the date of decision. Complaint is allowed accordingly.”

6.      Aggrieved of the impugned order, the opposite parties are in appeal before this Commission.

7.      The only contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellants was that Post Mortem Report (PMR) was not produced by the complainants to establish it a case of an accidental death.

8.      The submission made is devoid of merits in view of ‘Death Certificate’ issued by PGIMS, Rohtak Exhibit C-3, reproduced above. Besides that, the entire record pertaining to the treatment of deceased was produced. The purpose of PMR was only to know the cause of death. The intention behind the requirement of PMR has to be seen and not the plain words. To rule out that it was not a case of homicide/suicidal death, it was proved on the record that it was an accidental death, as is evident from Certificate Exhibit C-3 and the entire record of the PGIMS.   

9.      Hon’ble National Commission in Revision Petition No.1079 of 2012, The Director General Social Justice and Empowerment Department and another Versus Mamta Devi alias Mamta Sharma, decided on August 24^th, 2012 in a similar situated case held as under:-

“3.     Mr.Paul would assail the orders passed by the for a below primarily on the ground that the complainant cannot be said to be a consumer within the meaning of Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and the petitioner-authority as service provider because the Rajiv Gandhi Parivar Beema Yojna was a social welfare and benevolent scheme brought into force by Haryana State to protect the residents of the State in case of untimely death so that the family is not rendered altogether helpless after the death of the bread-earner of the family. He submits that no charge or fee or premium was payable by the person covered under the scheme and therefore both the fora below have erred in entertaining the complaint as a consumer dispute and answering the same. There appears to be force in this contention because for the above noted reasons, the case of the complainant would not fall within the purview of the Consumer Protection Act firstly because the scheme by its very nature was a social welfare measure taken by the State without seeking any premium or charge for the same.

4.      Even after holding so, the question is as to whether we should relegate the respondent-complainant to the jurisdiction of the competent for a i.e. the Civil Court or High Court for exercising its writ jurisdiction at this stage or we make an exception in the present case so as to hold that the direction given to the petitioner in regard to the payment of the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- be complied by the petitioner. In our view, it would be harsh upon the respondent-complainant, who is a woman and has lost her husband aged about 26 years to be asked to seek her remedy before the civil court once the matter has reached up till this stage after about six years. The complainant has produced ample proof in regard to the death of her husband on 06.10.2006 due to snake bite by producing the requisite certificates from the Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat etc. The State as a model Administrator out to have accepted the same without insisting upon the verification of a post-mortem examination report etc., when no such post-mortem was admittedly conducted.

5.      Going by the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case, we allow the revision petition only to the extent and by holding that the dispute raised by the respondent-complainant could not have been entertained by consumer fora”.

10.    Under these circumstances, it is established that the deceased died because of the accidental head injuries, so the complainant is entitled to the compensation of Rs.1.00 lac as per the scheme.

11.    In view of above, the appeal is devoid of merit and is dismissed.

12.    The statutory amount of Rs.25,000/- deposited at the time of filing the appeal be refunded to the respondent-complainant against proper receipt and identification in accordance with rules, after the expiry of period of appeal/revision, if any.

CL