Per Shri S. B. Mhase, Hon’ble President
This appeal takes an exception to the order passed on 13/10/2009 by the District Consumer Redressal Forum, Akola in Consumer Complaint No. 265/2008. By the said order the District Consumer Redressal Forum has directed the opponent to pay an amount of `1 Lakh with interest @7.5% p.a. from 06/03/2002 and by way of mental agony `1,000/- and for cost of litigation `1,000/- was awarded. These amount are directed to be paid in view of the deficiency in service. The deceased/Rehman Khan Faizullah Khan, who was husband of the complainant no. 1 expired on 06/03/2002 in an accident which had taken place on National Highway no. 6 at Balapur-Khamgaon. It is admitted fact that said Rehman Khan was a member of appellant/society. It is employees’ society. He was working on Katepurna Project of Govt. of Maharashtra (Irrigation Department). The said society had floated a scheme to take group insurance policy for period of five years in respect of each member on payment of premium of `228/-. Accordingly, the society had issued a circular on 26/08/2001. Prior to said circular the deceased had taken a membership of said society on 27/03/2001. Therefore, deceased was covered under the said scheme and it was obligation of the appellant to deposit `228/- with the insurance company and to get an appropriate insurance. It is equally on record that society had taken a policy of 231 member employees on 25/03/2001. Even though the deceased had become member on 27/03/2001, the insurance ought to have been taken by the society including him as member in the earlier policy and/or taking appropriate steps for the insurance. Appellant/society failed to take these steps.
Now, the stand taken by the appellant and as submitted by the Ld. Counsel for the appellant is that, that in a resolution passed in September, 2001, it has been resolved by the General Body Meeting that amount of `228/- is to be taken from the salary of the member employees and thereafter, whenever there is group of 100 persons, insurance policy should be taken and therefore, they say that they are protected. However, that stand taken by the society is not proper because that resolution operates prospectively. Any resolution which is taken by society cannot be applied retrospectively and therefore, stand taken is not sustainable in law. Except this no other argument was submitted. The deceased being member of the society was entitled to all services as availed by other 231 members. Therefore, there is deficiency in service as observed by the District Consumer Redressal Forum. Hence we pass the following order :
-: ORDER :-
1. Appeal stands rejected.
2. No order as to costs.
3. Dictated on dais.
4. Copies of the order herein be furnished to the parties as per rule.
