BEFORE THE A.P STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION AT HYDERABAD.
F.A. No. 163/2007 against C.C. 131/2004, Dist. Forum, Srikakulam
Between:
1) Sahara India Commercial Corporation Ltd.
Command Office, Sahara India Bhavan
Kapoorthala Complex
Lucknow-226 024.
2) The Sector Worker, Sector Office
Sahara India, Srikakulam Branch
Srikakulam-532 001.
Both are represented by Zia Qadree
Asst. Director Worker,
Sahara India Pariwar
Sahara Manzil, Opp. Secretariat
Hyderabad. *** Appellants/
. O.Ps.
And
Smt. Mogili Appamma
W/o. Late Mogili Police
Age: 46 years, House Wife
R/o. Chinna Upparapeta Village
Pedda Tulugu Post
Gara, Gara Mandal,
Srikakulam Dist. *** Respondent/
Complainant
Counsel for the Appellants: Ms. Vijaya Sagi.
Counsel for the Respondent: M/s. K. Murali Krishna.
CORAM:
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.APPA RAO, PRESIDENT.
&
SRI R. L. NARASIMHA RAO, MEMBER
WEDNESDAY, THIS THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND NINE
ORAL ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice D. Appa Rao, President.)
***
1) This is an appeal preferred by the opposite party Sahara India against the order of the Dist. Forum directing it to pay Rs. 30,000/- with interest @ 12% p.a., and pay Rs. 1,500/- p.m commencing from August, 2002 with interest @ 12% p.a., from 9.10.2003 for 100 months and further directed to pay Rs. 4,000/- towards compensation and Rs. 1,500/- towards costs.
2) The case of the complainant in brief is that the complainant’s husband Mogili Police during his life time deposited Rs. 10,000/- on 13.6.2001 showing her as his nominee for redemption value of Rs. 30,000/- the maturity date being 13.9.2010. He died on 3.7.2002 due to heart attack. Since the death was after 12 months she was entitled to redemption value of Rs. 30,000/- along with death benefit under the scheme. When she approached with all necessary documents viz., bond, death certificate etc., the appellant did not pay. She gave legal notice for which there was no response. Therefore she prayed that she be paid Rs. 30,000/- towards redemption value together with interest @ 13% p.a., and further pay an amount of Rs. 5,000/- towards death help, compensation and costs.
3) The appellant resisted the case. It alleged that the complainant’s husband had deposited Rs. 10,000/- on 13.6.2001 agreeing with the terms and conditions stipulated in the bond. The complainant did not submit the relevant documents nor fulfilled the terms and conditions of the scheme in order to entitle the death help. It was not liable to pay any amount. There was a clause of Arbitration and therefore the Dist. Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. At any rate the case does not come under the purview of Consumer Protection Act.
4) The complainant in proof of her case filed her affidavit evidence and got Exs. A1 to A7 marked, while the appellant filed the affidavit evidence of its Branch Manager and got Ex. B1 marked.
5) The Dist. Forum after considering the evidence placed on record opined that the appellant was bound to pay redemption value of Rs. 30,000/- with interest @ 12% p.a., from 4.7.2002 and Rs. 1,500/- per month from August, 2002 with interest @ 12% p.a., from 9.10.2003 till the date of realization and pay the same for 100 months besides compensation of Rs. 4,000/- and Rs. 1,000/- towards litigation expenses and Rs. 500/- towards advocate fee.
6) Aggrieved by the said order, appellant preferred the appeal contending that the Dist. Forum did not appreciate the facts in correct perspective. It did not consider that the scheme is not insurance linked death help. The amount advanced as death help is in the form of interest free loan offered to the nominee against the personal guarantee for repayment. A period of 16 years is given to the nominee for the repayment of the death help amount. No interest is charged on the amount and the repayment period starts after five years from the date of receiving the death help, and that too if it satisfies with other terms and conditions pertaining to the death etc. The Dist. Forum did not understand the terms of the contract nor it could be stated that there was deficiency of service on its part. At any rate the claim is barred by limitation and could be adjudicated by an arbitrator and prayed for dismissal of the complaint with costs.
7) The point that arises for consideration is whether the order of the Dist. Forum is vitiated by mis-appreciation of facts and liable to be set-aside?
8) It is an undisputed fact that the complainant’s husband Mogiili Police deposited a sum of Rs. 10,000/- on 13.6.2001 with the appellant wherein the appellant in turn agreed to pay Rs. 30,000/- towards redemption value by 13.9.2010. Sri Mogiili Police kept the complainant as his nominee. He died on 3.7.2002 due to heart attack 12 months after the issuance of bond. After the death of the deceased the complainant sought to recover the redemption value mentioned in the bond together with interest besides death help and costs. Ex. A1 is the bond.
9) Before considering the nature of transaction and the terms and conditions stipulated in the bond, it is useful to refer to the reply given by the appellant to the notice issued by the complainant. The appellant made it clear in Ex. A7 reply that as per the scheme the ‘Death help’ is only a facility which is given to the nominee of the account holder if he fulfills certain terms and conditions as mentioned in the scheme itself. If any nominee fails to fulfill any of the obligations made in the scheme form, appellant is not bound to give death help.” Despite the fact that the complainant proved before the appellant as to the nature and date of death etc. vide Ex. A3 certificate of death shows that the deposit holder died on 3.7.2002. the appellant did not admittedly make any investigation to find out the cause of the death. Undoubtedly she is entitled to the amount as agreed upon as per the terms and conditions. Since the nominee of the deposit holder claimed the amount, clause 6 of the terms and conditions stipulates “ The nominee of the deceased account holder shall be entitled to Death help facility subject to following conditions:-
a) Age of the deceased account holder was between 15 and 65 years at the time of death
b) The account has continued for minimum 365 days from the date of opening the account and 12 months installments have been deposited and at the time of death a minimum of 50% installments of the total period of payment have been made. In case of monthly installments, at least one month installment should have been deposited within 3 months prior to death.
c) The account holder was not suffering from any chronic/fatal disease within past three years at the time of opening the account. The nominee shall produce the authentic, convincing documentary proof in this regard, along with proof of death to the satisfaction of the company.
d) The death of the account holder did not occur due to suicide or death punishment by the Court of Law.
e) The death of the account holder did not occur due to communal violence.
10) Though the complainant asserts that it is an insurance linked death help, it is no where stated that the nominee would be entitled to face value of the amount on the death of the deceased. What all it was stated is that the death help is interest free loan offered to the nominee against repayment. A period of 16 years is given to the nominee for repayment of death help amount, and no interest is charged for this amount. The repayment period starts five years after receiving the death help. Evidently no premium would be charged under the account of bond holder against the death help.
11) The appellant’s contention that required documents were not filed and therefore it was not liable to extend the amount payable under the scheme cannot be countenanced. The relevant documents as we could see were submitted and the appellant some how it intends to deny the benefit.
12) Learned counsel for the appellant contended that there is no date fixed to extend the facility. They would pay only after observing the formalities by the nominee as laid down in the scheme. It is therefore contended that no interest can be awarded for the proposed amount even after payment is made. We may state that having taken the amount treating it as loan not paying the amount is unjustified and contrary to the law. The appellant obviously luring the villagers receiving the amount by way of deposits, failing to pay the amount when they actually needed the amount. The personal guarantee can be given when the amount is paid. No doubt the Dist. Forum did not appreciate the fact that it was not an insurance linked amount. The deceased died on 3.7.2002. After issuing notice the complaint was filed. Later it was responded by the appellant on 17.2.2004, obviously after receipt of summons in the complaint. Absolutely there is no meaning for such a reply when the complainant filed all these documents viz., death certificate, original bond etc. The complainant is entitled to whatever benefits she was entitled to under the bond.
13) In the result the appeal is allowed in part. The order of the Dist. Forum is modified allowing the complaint in part directing the appellants to extend the face value of the bond with bonus and amount equivalent to 4% of the face value of the bond every month for 75 months with an option for repayment of death help for a period of 16 years. The complainant is also entitled to costs of Rs. 2,000/-. Time for compliance four weeks.
1) _______________________________
PRESIDENT
2) ________________________________
MEMBER
Dt. 16. 12. 2009.
*pnr
“UPLOAD – O.K.”
