JUSTICE V.K.JAIN (ORAL) Smt. Savitri Devi, mother of the complainant, purchased a bond of scheme 010- option 2. The complainant was her nominee in respect of the said scheme. Shrimati Savitri Devi died on 06.04.2004. The complainant applied for grant of the death assistance payable to him under the scheme. The said death assistance having not been provided to him, he approached the concerned District Forum by way of a consumer complaint filed on 04.11.2006. The amount of the bond, however, was paid to the complainant. 2. The complaint was resisted by the petitioner which admitted the investment made by Shrimati Savitri Devi and took a preliminary objection that the complaint was barred by limitation. On merits, it was inter alia, stated in the written version that the bond amount was paid to the complainant in full satisfaction accepted by him. It was inter alia stated in the written version that the complainant had failed to prove that the bond holder was not suffering from any fatal/incurable disease within three years before purchasing the bond and, therefore, death assistance could not be provided. 3. District Forum vide its order dated 22.03.2007 directed as under:- “5. We have carefully gone through the entire facts and circumstances of the case and do find that this is fit case for the complainant to get the death help as provided by the terms and conditions of the schemes lodged by the O.P. Accordingly the O.P is directed to pay face value of the bond i.e. 1,000/- per month from the death i.e. 6-4-2002 in a lumpsum for accumulated period and further to pay monthly of Rs. 1,000/- for the total period of 10 years to the complainant he will also pay Rs. 2,000/- by way of compensation for harassment and cost of litigation within a month of the date of order.” 4. Being aggrieved from the order passed by the District Forum, the petitioner approached the concerned State Commission by way of an appeal. Vide impugned order 04.08.2014 the State Commission dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner. Being aggrieved the petitioner is before this Commission. 5. The preliminary submission of the Ld. counsel for the petitioner is that the complaint when instituted was barred by limitation which commenced on the death of the bond holder. The complaint, according to him, ought to have been instituted within two years of her death. I, however, find absolutely no merit in the contention. Though the amount of the bond was paid to the complainant the claim for grant of this assistance was never rejected. The cause of action to file the consumer complaint therefore continued to accrue in favour of the complainant even till the date on which the consumer complaint was actually instituted. Had the claim for grant of the death assistance been rejected the period of limitation would have commenced from that date but the death assistance having never been refused the complainant had a recurrent cause of action to approach the District Forum by way of a consumer complaint. In fact even the date on which the amount of the bond was disbursed to the complainant is not available with the Ld. counsel for the petitioner. Therefore, the complaint, in my view, cannot be said to be barred by limitation. 6. The petitioner had taken another preliminary objection in its written version, alleging that the scheme in which deposit was made by the deceased was operated by the company namely Sahara India Commercial Corporation Limited and the petitioner was only an agent of the said company. The submission of the Ld. counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner was bad for non joinder of the company namely Sahara Commercial Corporation Limited. Though the petitioner claims to be an agent of the above-refereed company the submission of the Ld. counsel for the complainant is that the petitioner is an ‘Umbrella Organisation’ of Sahara India Group and controls the affairs of all companies of the group including the company referred above. A perusal of the written version filed before the District Forum would show that the petitioner contested the consumer complaint on merits questioning her entitlement to the death help. It clearly shows that the petitioner is integrally connected with the company namely Sahara Commercial Corporation Limited and forms part of the same group to which the said company belongs. In a consumer matter of this nature where the amount involved is very small and the complainant is the nominee of a very small investor it will not be appropriate to interfere with the concurrent order passed by the fora below in exercise of the revisional jurisdiction of this Commission when the matter was contested not only on preliminary issue but also on merits. Ultimately, the amount payable to the complainant in terms of the order passed by the Fora below may come from the coffers of the concerned company which contested the consumer complaint through the petitioner organization. In fact the petitioner itself has stated in the Revision Petition that the bond was procured from it. Therefore, I am not inclined to entertain the submission at this stage. 7. As far as the merits of the case are concerned the clause pertaining to grant of death help in the event of the death of the account holder reads as under:- (8) AFTER DEATH ASSISTANCE On death o/ the Bond holder, nominated successor of the deceased Account Holder shall be entitled for assistance after death on the basis of following terms and conditions:- (a) At the time of death, age of Bond holder should be between 15 years and 65 years. (b) Death of Bond holder might have after 12 months/365 days of purchasing the Bond and before maturity period of the Bond. (c) Cause of death of the Bond holder should not be due communal riots or any war. (d) Cause of death of the Bond holder should not be due communal riots or any war. (e) The Bond holder should have not suffered from any fatal/incurable disease continuously within 03 years prior to starting of Account. The nominated successor shall submit reliable and proved documents in this connection for obtaining assistance after death, which shall also accompany with the proof relating to Birth certificate of the Bond holder and death certificate to the satisfaction of company. (9) AMOUNT OF AFTER DEATH ASSISTANCE On the death of Bond holder, amount mentioned in the Bond shall be calculated with pre stage rate of interest, after adjustment of the secured loan borrowed by the Bond holder and interest accrued thereon, remaining amount shall be refunded by the company to the nominated successor of the Bond holder. Apart from this, 5% amount of the total value of Bond shall be payable as after death assistance to the nominated successor of the Bond holder as per rule. If death of Bond holder occurs any time after 12 months of purchasing the Bond, then 5% amount of the value of the Bond shall be payable to the nominated successor of the Bond holder upto period of 100 months. The nominated successor of the Bond holder may obtained facility of after death assistance only by furnishing his/her personal Bond. A period of 16 years shall be given for refunding after death assistance. No interest shall be charged on this amount and it shall not be necessary to refund this amount till five years of receiving after death assistance.” 8. The Petitioner failed to show that the complainant was not entitled to the death assistance in terms of the clause contained in the scheme in which the deposit was made by the deceased. Though, the said amount was returnable to the company, it was not to carry and interest and was to be disbursed on the strength of the personal bond of the nominee of the depositor. This is nobody’s case that the complainant was not willing to execute the personal bond. In fact, the petitioner or for that matter the company namely Sahara Commercial Corporation Limited never offered the death assistance to the complainant. The complainant, therefore, has rightly been held entitled to the said death assistance. 9. The Ld. counsel for the petitioner submits that appropriate surety should be asked from the complainant before asking them to disburse death assistance. Reliance is placed by the Ld. Counsel upon the decision of this commission in Sahara India Pariwar Vs. Pawan Kumar Jain I (2015) CPJ 721 (NC) wherein this Commission inter alia held as under:- “6. It is contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioner Company that the complaint ought to have been filed within two years from the date on which the sum of Rs. 14,000 was paid to the complainant and the said amount having been paid on 25.11.2004, the complaint filed on 18.12.2007 was clearly barred by limitation prescribed in Section 24A of the Consumer Protection Act. 7. As far as limitation is concerned, we find no merit in the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the petitioner. While making payment of Rs. 14,000 to the complainant, the petitioner Company did not refuse to extend the Death Help Scheme to him. On receipt of the aforesaid amount, the complainant requested to the petitioner Company for payment in terms of the said Scheme. That prayer, however, was never rejected by the petitioner Company. Therefore, there is no merit in the contention that the period of limitation for the purpose of claiming benefit of Death Help Scheme would commence from the date of payment of Rs. 14,000 to the complainant. 8. It is next contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that in terms of Clause 8(f), the benefit under the Death Help Scheme is payable only if the bond holder is not suffering from any chronic or fatal disease within three years of the opening his account with the petitioner Company. However, in the case before us, there is no evidence of the deceased suffering from any chronic/fatal disease within three years from opening her account with the petitioner Company. Therefore, the benefit of the Death Help Scheme cannot be refused to her. 9. The learned Counsel for the petitioner lastly submits that in terms of the second para of Clause 9 of the Scheme, the nominee is required to refund the amount received by it within a period of 16 years without paying any interest and such repayment would not be necessary within five years from the date of receiving the Death Help Scheme. The contention is justified. We, therefore, make it clear that the complainant would have to repay the amount which he would receive as a benefit under the Death Help Scheme, within the period of 16 years, though without any interest on that amount. He will also have to give personal guarantee in terms of para 2 of Clause 9 of the Scheme, while receiving the payment from the petitioner Company. The repayment would start after five years from the date of receiving the benefit and the entire amount would be paid by him in equal monthly instalments spread over a period of 11 years. The complainant shall also furnish the bank guarantee before the concerned District Forum after the petitioner Company has deposited the amount payable to him, before the said Forum. The personal guarantee would be handed over before the concerned District Forum to the petitioner Company and the amount deposited by it would then be released to the complainant. The revision petition stands disposed of accordingly.” 10. In my opinion, in this matter there is no justification to ask the complainant, for the surety when the scheme itself requires to furnish only her personal bond. Asking for the surety would be contrary to the terms of the scheme and possibly result in frustrating the grant of the assistance since being a poor person the complainant may not be in a position to furnish the surety to the satisfaction of the petitioner. In Pawan Kumar Jain (supra), the relevant scheme itself provided for personal surety of the nominee, but in this matter only personal bond is required. 11. For the reasons stated hereinabove, the order of the Fora below does not call for any interference of this commission in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction. Any interference by this Commission on the technical grounds advanced by the Ld. counsel for the petitioner will result in the failure of justice instead of advancing the same. The revision petition is, therefore, dismissed with no order as to cost. | 
