Heard the learned counsel for the appellant. None appears for the respondent.
2. This appeal is filed U/S-15 of erstwhile Consumer Protection Act,1986(herein-after called the Act). Hereinafter, the parties to this appeal shall be referred to with reference to their respective status before the learned District Forum.
3. The case of the complainant, in nutshell is that the complainant is the wife of Late Bhubaneswar Satapathy who has opened a pass book on 15.09.2001 for recurring deposit @ Rs.200/- per month. It is alleged inter-alia that her husband died on 12.09.2004. After death of her husband the complainant applied for maturity amount and she received the deposited amount of Rs.5600/- without any accrued interest thereon although clause-9 of the terms and conditions of the pass book allowed her to get the interest. The complainant issued a notice on 28.02.2007 to the Op to pay the interest but the complainant received the letter of repudiation on 8.3.07 on the ground that as per company rules and regulation of their Organization, the complainant’s husband has not deposited an amount of Rs.2400/- within two years from the date of account opening. It is also alleged by the complainant that complainant being not provided the interest as per clause-9 of the condition, there is unfair trade practice and deficiency in service on the part of the OP. So, the complaint was filed.
4. The OP filed written version stating that the Op has filed application under Sub-Section (1) of Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act,1996 in accordance with the provision of the agreement. It is admitted by the complainant that Bhubneswar Satapathy had opened an account under Sahara-RD (N) Scheme and was allotted the account number. There was agreement executed between the parties while the account was opened. It was relating to the scheme where an arbitrator is persay to decide the dispute. In accordance with the provisions of the agreement, an arbitrator has been already appointed on 26.11.2007. Therefore, the matter should be dropped leaving the same to the arbitrator. Hence, it is prayed to dismiss the complaint.
5. After hearing both the parties, learned
District Forum has passed the following order:-
Xxxx xxxxx xxxxxxx
“ In the result we direct the opposite party to pay the accrued interest to the deposited amount alongwith death help as per law and to pay all the legitimate claim to the complainant within one month of receipt of this order. No costs. “
6. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that learned District Forum has committed error in law by allowing the interest because the complainant as per terms and conditions of the agreement has already received Rs.5600/- and she is not entitled to further amount. Since, the complainant has already paid the money, there is no cause of action to pay further amount. He also submitted in writing that complainant’s husband died due to some disease like RHD with AS with MR HYPOKALEMIA. Since, his death was not accidental but got previous disease and the fact that there is deposit of Rs.2400/- in 1st 12 months, they have repudiated the claim. Learned District Forum ought to have considered the fact and law involved in this case. Therefore, he submitted that the impugned order should be set-aside by allowing the appeal.
7. Considered the submission of learned counsel for the appellant, perused the DFR and impugned order .
8. It is admitted fact that the pass book was opened by the complainant under recurring scheme before the OP. It is also not in dispute that the complainant’s husband died on 12.09.2004 leaving behind her wife and the OP paid Rs.5600/- as deposited by complainant’s husband earlier but not the interest thereon. Annexure-1 shows that complainant’s husband has filled up the form and deposited Rs.2400/- with terms and conditions enshrined therein. The Op referred to clause-9 of agreement which is as follows:-
The company shall pay to the nominee(s) of the deceased account holder the total deposited amount alongwith the accrued interest that stage credited in the Account of the deceased Account holder after calculating/appropriating the amount of secured loan, withdraw and loss of interest(if any), as per the rules of the Company, and case the death of the Account Holder occurs after depositing 12 months installments, but before completion of 60 months installment an amount equivalent to two months installment would be payable every month for a period of 60 months.”
9. In the instant case the interest provision could be applied because no document is filed by the OP to show that the account holder has not deposited Rs.2400/- for 1st 12 months. When OP failed to prove condition precedent to avail benefit, there is reason to believe that action of OP is illegal. When the OP on vague plea has refused to pay interest, we find there is deficiency in service on the part of the OP.
Therefore, the impugned order is confirmed and the appeal stands dismissed having no merit.
Free copy of the order be supplied to the respective parties or they may download same from the confonet or webtsite of this Commission to treat same as copy of order received from this Commission.
DFR be sent back forthwith.
