Madhya Pradesh

StateCommission

A/14/2026

SAHARA INDIA COMMERICAL CORP. LTD. - Complainant(s)

Versus

/ SMT. REKHA DHAWAI - Opp.Party(s)

09 Jul 2024

ORDER

M. P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BHOPAL

PLOT NO.76, ARERA HILLS, BHOPAL      

 

FIRST APPEAL NO. 2026 OF 2014

(Arising out of order dated 02.09.2014 passed in C.C.No.370/2009 by District Commission, Ujjain)

 

SAHARA INDIA COMMERCIAL CORPORATION

LIMITED AND ANOTHER.                                                                           …         APPELLANT.

 

        Versus

 

SMT. REKHA DHAWAI (YADAV) AND ANOTHER.                                    …         RESPONDENT.

 

 

BEFORE:

                  HON’BLE SHRI A. K. TIWARI              :      ACTING PRESIDENT

                 HON’BLE DR. SRIKANT PANDEY      :      MEMBER

 

                                      O R D E R

 

09.07.2024

 

    Shri Yash Vidyarthi, learned counsel for the appellants.

    Shri Mukesh Shrivastava, learned counsel for the respondent no.1.

    Ms. Preetima Shrivastava, learned counsel for the respondent no.2.

 

As per A. K. Tiwari:

                        The opposite party no.1 and 2/appellants have filed this appeal against the order dated 02.09.2014 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ujjain (For short ‘District Commission’) in C.C.No.370/2009 whereby the District Commission has allowed the complaint filed by the complainant/respondent no.1.

2.                Heard. Perused the record.

3.                Learned counsel for the opposite party no.1 and 2/appellants argued that the complaint filed by the complainant before the District

-2-

Commission was time barred and that is too without any application for condonation of delay despite that the District Commission did not consider this aspect and allowed the complaint against the appellants. He argued that the opposite party no.3-insurance company issued third party insurance policy to cover accidental death of advance booking holders of Sahara Rajat Yojna for which the insurance company had received a lump sum amount from the opposite party no.1 and 2-Sahara. He argued that though the District Commission found that liability of payment of accidental death claim lies with the insurance company but fixed the liability of payment against Sahara.

4.                He argued that the District Commission has wrongly held that appellants-Sahara never forwarded the claim to the insurance company as such the District Commission has failed to appreciate the evidence on record. He argued that the amount deposited by complainant’s late husband had already been refunded to the complainant who received the amount in full satisfaction and therefore she ceased to be a consumer of the Sahara. He argued that the complaint of the complainant/respondent no.1 be dismissed by allowing the appeal.

 

-3-

5.                Learned counsel for the complainant/respondent argued that the complainant’s late husband had deposited Rs.10,000/- under Sahara Rajat Yojna. Her husband died on 02.02.2006 and thereafter she applied for accidental death claim insurance as per scheme but the same was not provided to her. The complaint by her against the opposite parties has rightly been allowed by the District Commission as the complainant is entitled to get accidental death claim under the scheme. He therefore prayed for dismissal of appeal.

6.                Learned counsel for the opposite party no.3/respondent no.2-insurance company argued that it is true that the insurance company by issuing policy promised to indemnify Sahara and to provide accidental death claim facility to investors of Sahara but under the terms and conditions of the subject policy. The insurance company not received the claim neither from Sahara nor from the complainant whereas under the policy terms and conditions, the claim has to be submitted within a period of 30 days from the date of death of beneficiary investor. The complainant’s husband died on 02.06.2006 and the insurance company came to know about this fact only on 08.07.2010 when the insurance company received notice of this complaint from the District Commission. She argued that in

-4-

such circumstances, the District Commission has rightly held the opposite party no.1 and 2-Sahara responsible to pay accidental death claim to the complainant exonerating the insurance company. She therefore prayed for dismissal of appeal. 

7.                Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having gone through the record as also the impugned order, we find that the complainant’s husband Late Jitendra Dhawai (Yadav) during his life time had deposited Rs.10,000/-  under Sahara Rajat Yojna floated by the opposite party no.1 and 2-Sahara. Unfortunately he died on 02.02.2006 in an accident. The complainant being nominee and legal heir applied for accidental death claim but the same was denied by the opposite party no.1 and 2 Sahara on the pretext that the opposite party no.3-insurance company is liable to pay accidental death claim.

8.                The insurance company though admitted to indemnify the Sahara and to provide accidental death claim facility under the subject policy to investors of Sahara but denied its liability on the ground that the insurance company did not receive the accidental death claim within a period of 30 days from death of beneficiary investor. The opposite party no.1 and 2-Sahara by filing two documents of insurance company along

-5-

with an application under Order 41 Rule 27 of CPC that they forwarded the claim to the insurance company. On perusal of document no.1 dated 08.09.2009, we find that in the said letter addressed to Sahara India, the insurance company has specifically mentioned that date of death of Late Jitendra Dhabia is 02.02.2006 and intimation received on 05.09.2009. In the letter dated 28.10.2009 addressed to Sahara India the insurance company in reply to letter dated 22.10.2009 has submitted since they are not a party to the case they are unable to process the claim. From the aforesaid documents, it is clear that the accidental death claim of the deceased was sent to the insurance company after three years whereas it ought to have been filed within 30 days from the date of death. In such circumstances it can easily be presumed that Sahara India did not forward the death claim of complainant’s husband to the insurance company within time and that is why the insurance company denied its liability.

9.                Along with application under Order 41 Rule 27 of CPC the Sahara India has filed terms and conditions of the scheme. As per terms and conditions it is clear that if the account holder of Sahara Rajat Yojna died within two years of opening the account under the scheme, he will get Rs.50,000/- as death claim, if died within 2 to 3 years, he will get

-6-

Rs.1,00,000/-and within a period of 3 to 4 years he will get Rs.1,50,000/-. The complainant’s husband opened the account on 21.07.2003 and died on 02.02.2006 i.e. within a period of 2 to 3 years, the complainant is entitled to get accidental death claim to the extent of Rs.1,00,000/-.

10.              The appellant has also filed IRDA guidelines but are of no help as in that it was directed to the insurance company to make necessary amendments in the policy to consider the delayed claims.

11.              Since the insurance company failed to process the accidental death claim of complainant’s husband on account of delayed intimation by the Sahara India, the District Commission rightly directed the opposite party no.1 and 2/appellants to pay amount of Rs.1,00,000/- payable under accidental death claim to the complainant with interest @ 8% p.a. from the date of filing of claim i.e. 25.08.2006 till payment. Compensation of Rs.10,000/- with costs of Rs.5,000/- is also awarded. 

12.              In view of the above discussion, we find that the District Commission after considering the documents and evidence available on record has rightly directed the opposite parties/appellants to pay the death claim as per scheme to the complainant and we do not find any illegality or

 

-7-

infirmity in the impugned order so as to call our interference in our appellate jurisdiction.  Accordingly, the impugned order is hereby affirmed.

13.              In the result, this appeal being devoid of any merit is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs.  

 

                   (A. K. Tiwari)                  (Dr.Srikant Pandey)  

                Acting President                      Member