Haryana

StateCommission

A/51/2016

STATE OF HARYANA - Complainant(s)

Versus

KAVITA - Opp.Party(s)

GOVT.PLEADER

21 Jul 2016

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                 

First Appeal No  :      51 of 2016

Date of Institution:    15.01.2016

Date of Decision :     21.07.2016

 

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

Smt. Kavita wife of late Roshan Lal, Resident of Village Dattaur, District Sampla.

                                      Respondent/Complainant

 

CORAM:             Hon’ble Mr. Justice Nawab Singh, President.

                             Mr. B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member.

 

Present:              Shri Ramesh Kumar, Assistant Advocate General for appellants.

                             None for respondent. 

 

                                                   O R D E R

 

NAWAB SINGH J.(ORAL)

 

          Case called several times since morning but none has appeared on behalf of the respondent. On the last date of hearing also, that is, May 17^th, 2016, the position was the same. This Commission thinks it appropriate to decide the appeal on merits after hearing learned counsel for the appellants and going through the case file.

2.                State of Haryana and its functionaries-Opposite Parties, are in appeal against the order dated November 14^th, 2014 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rohtak (for short ‘the District Forum’), whereby it directed the appellants/opposite parties to pay Rs.1.00 lac alongwith interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of the complaint, that is, March 14^th, 2008, till its actual realization; Rs.2200/- litigation expenses to Smt. Kavita-widow, Bhawna-daughter, on account of death of Roshan Lal, under ‘Rajiv Gandhi Pariwar Bima Yojna’ (for short ‘the Scheme’) issued by the Social Justice and Empowerment Department, Haryana vide notification dated 30^th August, 2011 (Exhibit R5/B).

3.                Roshan Lal (since deceased)-husband of complainant-Kavita and father of complainant-Bhawna, suffered chest pain on 18^th September, 2006. He was brought to a private Nursing Home at Sampla. The Medical Officer referred him to Post Graduate Institute of Medical Sciences (PGIMS), Rohtak. On the way, the auto-rickshaw in which he was travelling turned turtle. Roshan Lal and the other occupants of the auto-rickshaw suffered injuries. Roshan Lal died at the spot. Information was given to the Police. The deceased was brought to PGIMS, Rohtak where Post Mortem examination on the dead body of deceased was conducted on September 19^th, 2006 (Exhibit P-2). The cause of death was to be ascertained after the report of the Chemical Examination of viscera and Histopathology examination of heart. However, no viscera report has been produced by the complainant or the State.

4.                The complainant filed an application before the District Social Welfare Officer, Rohtak to grant her Rs.1.00 lac under the scheme (Exhibit R5/B). The claim was rejected by the Sub Divisional Officer (Civil), Rohtak, vide letter dated 26^th April, 2013 (Exhibit RW2/B) on the ground that Roshan Lal died due to heart attack, so complainants claim was not covered under the Scheme.  

5.                Learned counsel for the appellants has urged that complaint was not maintainable before the District Consumer Forum because complainants were not consumers within the meaning of Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.  In support of his contention, reliance has been placed upon the judgment rendered by 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, wherein it has been held as under:-

“3.      Mr. Paul would assail the orders passed by the fora 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.” 

6.               In view of the above, the complainants do not fall under the definition of Consumers and as such the complaint was not maintainable before the District Forum. Hence, the appeal is allowed, the impugned order is set aside and the complaint is dismissed.

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

 

 

Announced: 21.07.2016

(B.M. Bedi) Judicial Member

(Nawab Singh) President

 

CL