Haryana

StateCommission

A/700/2015

STATE OF HARYANA - Complainant(s)

Versus

SUSHMA - Opp.Party(s)

GOVT.PLEADER

15 Jan 2016

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                 

First Appeal No  :      700 of 2015

Date of Institution:      26.08.2015

Date of Decision :       15.01.2016

 

1. State of Haryana through Collector, Rohtak.
2. Sub Divisional Magistrate/Civil, Rohtak.
3. District Social Welfare Officer, Mini Secretariat, Rohtak.

 

                                      Appellants/Opposite Parties

Versus

 

Smt. Sushma wife of late Rohtash s/o Sh. Bharat Singh @ Bhartu, Resident of Village Baland, District Rohtak.

                                      Respondent/Complainant

 

CORAM:             Hon’ble Mr. Justice Nawab Singh, President.

                             Shri B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member.

                             Shri Diwan Singh Chauhan, Member                                                                                                                                         

Present:               Shri Ashok Kumar, AAG for appellants.

                             None for respondent.

 

                                                   O R D E R

 

NAWAB SINGH J.(ORAL)

 

By filing the instant appeal, State of Haryana and others-Opposite Parties, have challenged the correctness and legality of the order dated February 18^th, 2015, passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rohtak (for short ‘the District Forum’), in Complaint No.476 of 2012. By the impugned order, the District Forum accepted the complaint filed by Sushma Devi-complainant/respondent, directing the appellants to pay Rs.1.00 lac to the respondent alongwith interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing complaint, that is, August 29^th, 2012 till its realization and Rs.2200/- litigation expenses

2.      Rohtas-husband of respondent, died on April 20^th, 2010 due to the injuries suffered by him in a road accident which took place in the area of Police Station, Theog, District Shimla. F.I.R. No.59 dated 20^th April, 2010 (Exhibit C-1) under Sections 279,337/304-A of the Indian Penal Code, was lodged in Police Station Theog. Post Mortem examination was conducted vide report (Exhibit R-9) in Civil Hospital, Theog. Viscera of the deceased was examined in State Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL), Himachal Pradesh, Junga. The report of FSL is Exhibit R-3. The operative part of the report reads as under:-

“The contents of all parcels have been analyzed physically and chemically. Traces of ethyl alcohol were detected in the contents of parcels P/1, P/2 and P/3 but the same could not be detected in parcels P/4. The quantity of ethyl alcohol in parcel P/3 (Blood) is 135.70 mg%. No other poison could be detected in these parcels.”

3.      The respondent filed an application before the District Social Welfare Officer, Rohtak to grant her Rs.1.00 lac under “Rajiv Gandhi Parivar Bima Yojna’ (for short ‘the scheme’) issued by the Social Justice and Empowerment Department, Haryana vide notification dated 19^th November, 2009 (Exhibit R-2). The claim was rejected by the Deputy Commissioner, Rohtak (Exhibit R-5) on the ground that at the time of death the deceased was under the influence of liquor.  

4.      Learned counsel for the appellants has urged that complaint was not maintainable before the District Consumer Forum because respondent was not consumer within the meaning of Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.  In support of his contention, reliance has been placed upon the judgment rendered by Hon’ble National Commission in Revision Petition No.1079 of 2012, The Director General Social Justice and Empowerment Department and another Versus Mamta Devi alias Mamta Sharma decided on August 24^th, 2012, wherein it has been held as under:-

“3.      Mr. Paul would assail the orders passed by the fora below primarily on the ground that the complainant cannot be said to be a consumer within the meaning of Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and the petitioner-authority as service provider because the Rajiv Gandhi Parivar Beema Yojna was a social welfare and benevolent scheme brought into force by Haryana State to protect the residents of the State in case of untimely death so that the family is not rendered altogether helpless after the death of the bread-earner of the family.  He submits that no charge or fee or premium was payable by the person covered under the scheme and therefore both the fora  below have erred in entertaining the complaint as a consumer dispute and answering the same.  There appears to be force in this contention because for the above noted reasons, the case of the complainant would not fall within the purview of the Consumer Protection Act firstly because the scheme by its very nature was a social welfare measure taken by the State without seeking any premium or charge for the same.” 

5.      In view of this, the complaint was not maintainable before the District Forum. 

6.      The claim of the respondent also does not fall under the scheme. In the viscera report Exhibit R-3, the alcohol 135.70 mg was found in the blood of the deceased, which of course was in excess of the permissible limits. For ready reference, the coverage under the Scheme is reproduced as under:-

                   “3.     Coverage

1. Death/permanent total disability/disability due to accidents like:

1. rail/road/air accidents;
2. riot, strike and terrorism;
3. Snake bite, drowning;
4. Poisoning, electrocution;
5. Falling from height, collapse of house/building;
6. Fire, explosion, implosion;
7. Murder;
8. Attach by animals;
9. Stampede and suffocation etc;
10. Frost bit, sun burn (loo), lightening;
11. Burn injuries

(ii)      Death/permanent total disability/disability due to occupational hazards like threshing machine/industrial machine etc and due to any other unnatural events except the following:  

1. from –
   1. war and allied perils;
   2. nuclear risks;
   3. self injury, suicide or attempted suicide, or
2. whilst –
   1. under the influence of alcoholic drinks or drugs;
   2. engaging in aviation activities other than traveling as a passenger;
   3. Breaching any law with criminal intent.”

7.      Above being the legal proposition, the District Forum fell in error in allowing the complaint.  The appeal is accepted and the impugned order is set aside. The complaint is dismissed.

8.      The statutory amount of Rs.25,000/- deposited at the time of filing the appeal be refunded to the appellants against proper receipt and identification in accordance with rules, after the expiry of period of appeal/revision, if any.

 

Announced 15.01.2016

Diwan Singh Chauhan Member

B.M. Bedi Judicial Member

Nawab Singh President

CL