Haryana

StateCommission

A/701/2015

STATE OF HARYANA - Complainant(s)

Versus

KRISHNA - Opp.Party(s)

GOVT.PLEADER

11 Feb 2016

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                 

First Appeal No  :      701 of 2015

Date of Institution:      26.08.2015

Date of Decision :       11.02.2016

 

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. Krishna wife of late Shri Jas Ram s/o Sh. Ganga Ram, Resident of Village Samar Gopalpur, District Rohtak.

 

                                      Respondent/Complainant

 

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

                             Shri Diwan Singh Chauhan, Member                                                                                                                                         

Present:               Shri Ashok Kumar, AAG for appellants.

                             Shri U.K. Agnihotri, Advocate for respondent.   

 

                                                   O R D E R

 

B.M. BEDI, JUDICIAL MEMBER

 

This appeal of Opposite Parties is directed against order dated February 13^th, 2015, passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rohtak (for short District Forum), in Complaint No.179 of 2014. 

2.      Jas Ram (since deceased-husband of Krishna-complainant (respondent herein) died in a road accident on 20^th April, 2012. The respondent filed claim 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 the deceased had attained the age of 63 years at the time of death as per pension record and therefore respondent’s claim was not covered under the Scheme. The compensation not being paid, the respondent filed complaint before the District Forum.

3.      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 that the deceased had attained the age of 63 years at the time of death and therefore claim was not covered under the Scheme. It was prayed that the complaint be dismissed.

4.      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. 14.05.2014 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 from the date of decision. Complaint is allowed accordingly.”

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

6.      Learned counsel for the appellants has raised two fold arguments. Firstly, that the deceased had attained the age of 63 years at the time of his death and secondly that the respondent does not fall under the definition of ‘consumer’.

7.      Indisputably, the Old Age Pension, in the State of Haryana is being given to the persons on attaining the age of 60 years. A perusal of Exhibit R-4 shows that Jasram Ram son of Gangaman, was enrolled as beneficiary of the Old Age pension in July, 2008. As per information received from District Social Welfare Officer, Rohtak, the deceased was getting pension since the year of 2009. Meaning thereby, the deceased had attained the age of 60 years in 2009 and he died on 20.04.2012 i.e. after about three years. Thus, the deceased was of 63 years age at the time of death.

8.      The eligibility for getting compensation of Rs.1.00 lac under the Scheme is as under:-

“1. ELIGIBILITY

(i) Beneficiary

Persons of age 18 years and above but below 60 years of all the families in Haryana whose names appear in the voters' list of Haryana or who hold Ration Card issued by the Food and Supplies Department of Haryana shall be covered under this Scheme. Except the categories of family excluded in sub-para (ii) below and subject to the condition that the benefit will be admissible for only one member of the family. However, in cases where more than one member die or are injured in the same accident, benefit can be given in respect of all the dead or injured. Benefit of the scheme for death or permanent disability resulting from accident occurring even outside Haryana shall be extended under the scheme.

Homeless people, if fulfilling other conditions, are covered under this Scheme.”

 

9.      On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent/complainant has referred to the copy of School Leaving Certificate (Exhibit C-1) issued from Government Primary School, Farmana, District Sonipat, wherein the date of birth of Jas Ram has been mentioned as 10.05.1952. On the basis of this document, it was argued by the learned counsel for the respondent that the deceased was less than 60 years of age at the time of death.

10.    Admittedly, the deceased was resident of Village Samar Gopalpur, District Rohtak. Except the School Leaving Certificate (Exhibit C-1) issued by Government Primary School, Farmana, District Sonipat, there is no other evidence to prove the age of the deceased. In fact, the Matriculation Certificate can be considered as the proof of age. As per FIR, Post Mortem Report, old age pension record and claimant’s own petition, Jas Ram-deceased was resident of Village Samar Gopalpur, District Rohtak, while in the School Leaving Certificate Exhibit C-1, the student is resident of Village Farmana, District Sonipat. There is no evidence to connect the School Leaving Certificate with the deceased. There is no explanation on the record to show that how the certificate Exhibit C-1 pertained to the deceased. Be that as it may, the fact remains that the deceased was getting Old Age pension for the last three years and therefore he was of 63 years age as per the record maintained by District Social Welfare Officer, Rohtak. The District Forum has failed to appreciate the evidence produced on the record in its perspective manner and therefore, the impugned order cannot sustain.

11.    The other aspect of the case is that the respondent does not fall under the definition of ‘consumer’.       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, 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”.

12.    In view of the above, it is held that the respondent was not consumer within the meaning of Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and therefore the complaint was to be dismissed on this ground as well.  

13.    In view of above legal position enunciated above, the appeal is accepted, the impugned order is set aside and the complaint is dismissed.

14.    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: 11.02.2016

(Diwan Singh Chauhan) Member

(B.M. Bedi) Judicial Member

CL