FA.No.1414/2006 against  C.D.No.742/2005, District Forum-I, Visakhapatnam .

Between:

1. The Branch Manager,

    M/s.Sahara India Commercial Corporation Limited

    Sahara India Pariwar, Palasa Branch,

    Srikakulam District.

2. The Regional Manager,

    M/s.Sahara India Commercial Corporation Limited,

    Sahara India Pariwar, Station Road,

     Dondaparthi, Visakhapatnam.

3. The Managing Director,

    M/s.Sahara India Commercial Corporation Limited,

    Sahara India Pariwar, Sahara India Bhawan,

    Kapoorthala Complex, Lucknow.                                                .Appellants/

                                                                                                            Opp.parties.

All are represented by                                                                     

The Assistant Director Worker, Sahara India

Zonal Office, Sahara Manjil, Opp:Secretariat,

Saifabad, Hyderabad.

And

1. Sri Konchada Duryodhana Rao, S/o.Suryanarayana,

    Aged 38 years, R/o.Sri Residency,

    Isukathota Visakhapatnam.

2. Smt.Konchada Leela Kumari, W/o.Konchada Duryodhana

    Rao, aged 27 years, R/o.Sri Residency,

    Isukathota, Visakhapatnam.                                                        Respondents/

                                                                                                            Complainants.

Counsel for the Appellants               : Ms.Vijaya sagi

Counsel for the Respondents          :Mr.G.L.Nageswara Rao

                                    QUORUM:SRI SYED ABDULLAH, MEMBER.

AND

SRI R.LAKSHMI NARASIMHA RAO, MEMBER.     

TUESDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF AUGUST,

TWO THOUSAND NINE

ORAL ORDER: (Per  Hon'ble Sri Syed Abdullah, Member .)

                                                                                                                                                                                                                        ***

            Aggrieved by the order in C.D.No.742/2005 before the District Forum-I, Visakhapatnam, the appellants  who are opposite parties filed this appeal to set aside the same.

            The facts of the case are that the first complainant’s mother by name Konchada Savitramma had invested in fully paid up Sahara 10 of denomination of Rs.10,000/- each on 5-8-21998 with first opposite party for which a certificate bearing No.34341209347 was issued. The first complainant is the husband of the second complainant.  Both of them are shown as nominees and are entitled to get a sum of Rs.10,000/- per month for a period of 120 months from the date of death of depoistor i.e. Smt.Savithramma, who died on 23-7-2002.  The complainants have submitted the claim along with the relevant papers for payment of the amount as per the terms and conditions of the scheme.  The complainants were paid with the first instalment of Rs.10,000/- by the opposite party during the month of August/September, 2002 and thereafter failed to make regular payment of the remaining monthly instalments inspite of several demands both orally.  A legal notice was issued  and as it amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties, a complaint was filed.

            Opposite parties filed a counter resisting the claim though admitted that Savithramma had invested Rs.10,000/- in Sahara10 Scheme on 05-8-1998 and that the complainants are her nominees.  It is stated that the certificate of birth of late Savithramma which was submitted was not correct and that it does not bear registration number.  That a sum of Rs.10,000/- was paid but it was not towards the first instalment.  It was paid in terms of the scheme.  The complaint is not maintainable in view of arbitration clause No.10 in the agreement.

            During the enquiry, along with the affidavit, the complainants have filed Exs.A1 to A10 while the opposite parties filed affidavit and got marked Ex.B1 on their behalf.

            On the basis of the material available on record, the District Forum had allowed the complaint directing the opposite parties to pay a sum of Rs.3,60,000/- being the amount due for 36 monthly instalments at the rate of Rs.10,000/- per month commencing from August, 2002 to July, 2005 and continued to pay the balance amounts as per the agreement besides compensation of Rs.15,000/- for causing mental agony and costs of Rs.1,000/-.

            The appellants/opposite parties challenged the impugned order contending that the bond/certificate was issued with certain terms and conditions and on the death of the bond holder, the nominees were entitled to death help as contemplated and the nominees were required to fulfil the conditions by producing the certificates.  Without considering the terms and conditions, the District Forum has not only ordered a lumpsum payment of an amount of Rs.3,60,000/- besides monthly instalments at the rate of Rs.10,000/- per  month commencing from August, 2002 to July, 2005 a double payment cannot be ordered in contravention of the terms and conditions of the scheme.  It is further contended that the death help is an interest free loan facility extended to the nominees of the bond holder and the said sum is recoverable after expiry of 120 months without interest thereon.  It is also contended that the appellants have requested the respondents to furnish documents authenticating the date of birth of the deceased bond holder, documents relating to her medical history and the treatment records.  The birth certificate produced by the nominees does not bear the registration number and in the medical certificate, it is noted stated that she died due to chronic disease as such monthly instalments by way of death help could not be released and thereby the appellant cannot be attributed with deficiency in service.  However, on receipt of death intimation, a sum of Rs.10,000/- was paid and therefore the matter has to be referred to arbitration as per clause 10 of the agreement.

            We have gone through the material on record, Exs.A1 to A10 and Ex.B1 filed by the parties.  The facts are not in dispute that the deceased Savithramma had invested a sum of Rs.10,000/- under the scheme floated by the appellants and both parties have agreed to abide by the terms and conditions contained in Ex.B1, which is a proforma application under the scheme which contains terms and conditions.   As per condition No.5, the nominee of the deceased bond holder shall be entitled to death help facility in case the death of the bond holder occurs after 12 months from the date of purchasing the bonds and before completion of tenure. So also that the age of the bond holder should be between 16 to 60 years at the time of death.  They are also required to furnish the medical certificate of the bond holder about her death and also the authentic birth document so also proof of death for the opposite parties to reimburse the monthly instalments.  Condition No.7 also is to the effect that the company shall pay to the nominee of the deceased bond holder, the face value of bond with bonus of previous stage after deducting the amount taken under Secured Loan/Credit facility and appropriating the loss of interest.  The declared nominee can avail the facility of death help by giving personal guarantee only and that a period of 20 years will be given to the nominee for repayment of the death help amount and that no interest would be charged on the amount that was paid as death help.

            It is the contention of the opposite parties that the birth certificate does not bear the registration number and that the deceased policy holder suppressed a chronic disease and therefore the matter has to be referred to arbitration.  First of all it is necessary to see that as required under the terms and conditions of the certificate or bond, the nominees have fulfilled the conditions of the bond or not.  Ex.A4 was the birth certificate issued under section 12 and 17 under the registration of births and deaths Act, 1969.  Exs.A3 & A4 are the death  certificates of the deceased bond holder issued by Government.  Ex.A7 is the copy of the legal notice sent to the opposite parties which was acknowledged by the opposite parties.  On a ruse  pretext that Ex.A4 does not bear registration number and the opposite parties began to suspect the claim without sending Ex.A4 to the District Collector to cause enquiry about its genuineness.  This lapse on the part of the opposite parties amounts to deficiency in service.  With regard to arbitration, the District Forum had clearly discussed and come to a conclusion that there is no need to refer the matter to arbitration

            It is seen that the District Forum had passed an order directing the opposite parties to pay Rs.3,60,000/- towards the face value of the bond for a period of 120 months and also directed to pay regular instalments commencing from August, 2002 upto July, 2005 which is contrary and not in consonance with the terms of the scheme.  The impugned order is liable to be set aside to the extent of its mistake thereunder.

            In the result the appeal is allowed in part by modifying the order as under:

            ‘The appellants/opposite parties are directed to pay the death help to the respondents/complainant as contemplated under the bond Ex.B1 commencing from September, 2002 till date i.e. upto July 2009 (i.e. for 83 months) with interest at 9% p.a. within 30 days from the date of receipt of the order and the remaining 37 instalments regularly for the remaining period without any interest thereon.  In the circumstances each party to bear their own costs.

                                                                                       MEMBER. 

MEMBER

                                                                                   Dated 11-8.2009