PER SHRI. S.M. RATNAKAR – HON’BLE  PRESIDENT

1)        By this complaint the Complainant has prayed that it be held and declared that the Opposite Parties have provided deficient services and committed unlawful trade practice.  The Opposite Parties be directed to inform the Complainant his option for payment of monthly pension and mode of payment as per the Master Policy No.GA/12591 showing the amount of monthly pension and as to how it is arrived at.   The Complainant has alternatively prayed that the Opposite Parties be directed to repay the premium paid by the Complainant to the employer of Rs.13,994/- in the Super Annuation Fund of the Complainant as on 01/01/19885 alongwith compounding interest @ 15% quarterly amounting to Rs.8,74,845/- as shown in calculation sheet attached to the complaint at page nos.14 to 17 till filing of the complaint. The Complainant has prayed compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- from the Opposite Party for non performance of payment as per Master Policy No.GA/12591 within specified time therein.  The Complainant has further prayed compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- towards the mental torture, harassment caused to the Complainant for deficient service on the part of the Opposite Parties and cost of Rs.25,000/- towards this complaint. 

2)        According to the Complainant, the Opposite Parties are the service providers within the meaning of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the Act).  It is alleged that the Complainant was employed as an ‘Officer’ in the Erstwhile M.G. Consultancy Ltd., (a Unit of Mofatlal Group) since 0/07/1973.  It is submitted that as per the rules of the said Company the Complainant was admitted as a member of “M.G. Consultancy Services Ltd. Officers”. The said Company introduced Super Annuation Scheme w.e.f.01/10/1981.  As per the terms of the rules of the said scheme the Company’s contribution to the fund was being credited to the said Supper Annuation Account of the Complainant alongwith such interest as was determined by the trustees of the fund from time to time.  It is submitted that the Company of the Complainant has been wound-up w.e.f.31/07/1990 and Complainant services were transferred to another group Company viz; Navin Flourine Industries (Chemical Division of Mofatlal Industries Ltd.) from where the Complainant sought early retirement w.e.f.22/10/2002.

3)        It is the case of the Complainant that M.G. Consultancy Services Ltd. vide letter dtd.24/09/1984 informed the Complainant that virtue of amendment in the rules of the said scheme the Complainant will cease to be a member of the said scheme w.e.f.01/01/1985.  The said Company also informed the Complainant that as per his desire, the Trustees shall purchase annuities from the Opposite Parties so as to enable the Complainant to enjoy the benefits of pension from the date of his normal retirement.  The copy of the said correspondence is at Exh.‘1’.  It is submitted that as on the date of cessation of the Complainant’s membership of the said scheme the amount due to him was Rs.13,994/-.  The copy of the voucher of the said amount passed by the Trustees of the said Supper Annuation Scheme dtd.27/02/1985 is at Exh.‘2’ under which the amount of Rs.13,994/- was paid to the Opposite Party by Cheque No.584088 drawn on  United Commercial Bank, Nariman Point, Bombay, dtd.27/02/1985.  The said amount was paid alongwith prescribed Form No.6201-A to the Opposite Party proposing annuities on the life of the Complainant under Master Policy No.GA/12591.  The documents referred by M.G. Consultancy Service Ltd. are marked as Exh.‘3’, such as the prescribed form, proof of age and specimen signature form.  The said documents were acknowledged by the Opposite Parties by putting its seal at Exh.‘3.  It is submitted that the employer of the Complainant had requested the Opposite Parties to contact the Complainant before the due date of first payment of pension so that the Complainant can inform his option of pension and mode of payment. It is submitted that the normal retirement of date was 04/07/2011.  According to the Complainant, therefore the Opposite Parties were duty bound to provide the Complainant with such advance intimation and seeking various options of choosing mode of payment for monthly pension.  It is alleged that however, the Opposite Parties have failed and neglected in performing their duty and no information/intimation whatsoever was given to the Complainant till filing of this complaint. It is submitted that as the date of birth of the Complainant being 04/07/1951 the first annuity payment fell due on 04/07/2011 i.e. upon completion of 60 years of age.  It is alleged that the Complainant had written letter to Opposite Parties dtd.27/0/2003 and informed change of address, telephone number, etc. as per the letter at Exh.‘4’. The Opposite Party thereafter also failed and neglected to response to the letter issued by the Complainant to the Opposite Parties. According to the Complainant, three other colleagues viz; Mrs. Niru Gandhi, Mrs. Lalitha Sanatkumar and Mr. Ashok Agarwal who similarly ceased to be the members of the aforesaid scheme are getting their annuities under the said Master Policy No.GA/12591.  It is submitted that the non action in respect of the Complainant is nothing but the deficient service on the part of the Opposite Parties.  It is submitted that the Complainant has thereafter also made correspondence with the Opposite Parties as per the letter dtd.09/05/2011 and 18/06/2011 which are at Exh.‘5’ & ‘6’ respectively but the Opposite Parties did not give any response to the said correspondence and oral communication made by the Complainant. The Complainant has thereafter, issued notice through advocate, dtd.28/01/2013. The copy of which is at Exh.‘7’. It is submitted that the Opposite Parties have breached the contract by denying the pension/annuity which is contrary to the obligations mentioned in the M.G. Consultancy Services Ltd.’s letter dtd.27/02/1985.  The Opposite Parties are keeping silence over a twenty eight years old policy and refused to offer any reason for not paying the pension.  The same is therefore unfair trade practice and deficiency in service.  It is submitted that the date of vesting of the annuity was 04/07/2011 however, the Opposite Parties did not comply their obligation. The Complainant has therefore, claim the reliefs as mentioned in para 1 of this order. 

4)        The Opposite Parties filed their written statement and contested the claim.  It is contended that the allegation made in the complaint are false, baseless and vexatious and therefore the complaint is liable to be dismissed.  According to the Opposite Parties the records of alleged transactions between the M.G. Consultancy Services Ltd. i.e. employer of the Complainant and the Opposite Parties are not available with the Opposite Parties.  It is contended that the copies of the documents produced by the Complainant cannot be considered as a contract between the Complainant’s employer and Opposite Parties in respect of payment of pension.  It is submitted that the onus is upon the Complainant to prove that he is a member of Group Insurance Policy by producing receipt issued by Opposite Parties against the alleged payment of Rs.13,994/-.  It is contended that the authenticity of the documents submitted by the Complainant is doubtful and on this ground the complaint needs to be dismissed.  The relationship between the Complainant and the Opposite Parties as consumer within the meaning of the Act is denied.  It is further contended that since papers pertaining to the alleged transaction in respect of the membership of the Complainant in “M.G. Consultancy Services Ltd. Officer’s Suppers Annuation Scheme are not found with the Opposite Parties, the Opposite Parties are not in a position to deal with all the allegation made by the Complainant. According to the Opposite Parties mere acknowledgment of some papers by the Opposite Parties on behalf of the Complainant under the scheme does not make the Complainant illegible for benefits under the scheme.  It is contended that the Complainant should have produced the copies of all the documents in support of his alleged claim under Supper Annuation Scheme.  The Opposite Party has denied that vide Form 6201-A  the employer of the Complainant had directed that the amount of Rs.13,994/- was handed over to the Opposite Parties by way single premium purchase price for annuity to be purchase in the name of the Complainant.  It is also denied that three other colleagues of the Complainant viz; Mrs. Niru Gandhi, Mrs. Lalitha Sanatkumar & Mr. Ashok Agarwal who similarly ceased to be member of this scheme are annuity under the Master Policy No.GA/12591.  It is contended that as per the record available with the Opposite Party only Mrs. Niru Gandhi is getting annuity w.e.f.04/12/2008 and no other documents are available with the Opposite Parties.  It is denied that the Opposite Parties are negligent and deficient in service to the Complainant.  The other allegations made in the complaint have been denied by the Opposite Parties.  It is denied that the date of vesting the annuity in favour of the Complainant was on 04/07/2011 and the Opposite Parties have failed, neglected and avoided to make payments to the Complainant as alleged.  The reliefs claimed by the Complainant are also denied by the Opposite Parties. 

5)        The Complainant has filed his affidavit in support of his evidence.  The Opposite Parties have filed the affidavit of P.C. Sukale, Manager (Legal & HPF).  The Complainant has also filed affidavit of Mrs. Niru Gandhi.  Both the parties have filed their written arguments. We heard Shri. Pramod Divecha, Ld.Advocate for the Complainant and Shri. Navin Kumar Poojari, Ld.Advocate for the Opposite Parties.  We have also perused the documents placed on record in this complaint.

6)        While considering the claim made in the complaint it is necessary to be taken into consideration that the Opposite Parties have specifically contended in their written statement and affidavit of Shri. Sukale, Manager (Legal & HPF) that the records of the alleged transaction between the employers and Opposite Parties are not available with the Opposite Parties. The fact that the employer of the Complainant M.G. Consultancy Services Ltd. had issued Cheque No.584088, dtd.27/02/85 of Rs.13,994/- drawn on United Commercial Bank, Nariman Point, Bombay in favour of the Opposite Parties and the same was received by the office of the Opposite Parties on 27/02/1985 is provided as the Opposite Parties have affixed their seal in token of the said cheque as well as the letter addressed by M.G. Consultancy Services Ltd. as the Complainant has filed copies of the said receipt of documents on record at Exh.‘3’. The necessary form of the Opposite Party to become a member of Group Insurance Scheme and the proof of age and specimen signature of the Complainant have been filed on record by the Complainant at Exh.‘3’. The Opposite Parties have also admitted in it’s written statement that the Opposite Parties are paying annuity benefit to Mrs. Niru Gandhi w.e.f.04/12/2008.  The Opposite Parties have denied that Mr. Ashok Agarwal who similarly ceased to be member of the scheme in question is getting his annuity under the same Master Policy No.GA/12591.  The Opposite Parties have specifically came out that as per the record available with the Opposite Parties only Mrs. Niru Gandhi is getting annuity. The defence therefore, raised by the Opposite Parties in our view is required to be taken into consideration on the basis of the documents placed on record by both the parties.  In this context it is necessary to refer the affidavit filed by Mrs. Niru Gandhi who has specifically stated that she was serving as General Manager in M.G. Consultancy Services Ltd. from 01/10/1969 to 28/02/2001.  She also stated that in the meeting held on 07/08/1985 all officers unanimously decided to request management for cash payment in lieu of the contribution to the Supper Annuition and buy annuities from LIC of India from accumulated Supper Annuation Fund.  She further stated that the Chief Executive from Trustee Mr. Rajnikant F. Bengali by letter dtd.24/09/1984 confirmed amendment to rule 3 (a) of the rules of officers Supper Annuation Scheme to be made operative from 01/01/1985. She further stated that as per the meeting dtd.07/08/1985 on receiving Form No.6201 dully completed and signed alongwith copy of age proof and signature of concerned officers she herself alongwith R.H. Bengali in the capacity as the Trustee singed the vouchers and cheques drawn on LIC of India for individual officers. She also stated that then on 27/02/1985 the documents and cheques alongwith letter addressed to LIC of India were handed over.  She also stated that the Complainant was one of such officers in respect of whom she had alongwith R.H. Bengali signed the relevant voucher and cheque of Rs.13,994/- favouring LIC was drawn and singed by them jointly.   She also stated that the said cheque was delivered by hand delivery to LIC of India and acknowledgment stamp was obtained from the Opposite Parties.  She also stated that she is getting her annuity under the Master Policy No.GA/12591 (Annuity No.LX0003189) since 04/12/08.  Furthermore, letter addressed by M.G. Consultancy in respect of the said witness to the Opposite Party is a similar letter as in the case of the Complainant which is at Exh.‘3’.  It is also necessary to be noted that the Opposite Parties have placed on record one list showing Annuitants under policy No.GA/12591 (M.G. Consultancy Services Ltd.) in that list the name of Mrs. Niru Gandhi, Ashok Agarwal, S.R. Pednekar, R.H. Bengali etc. have been shown as the beneficiaries of annuity pension scheme of the Opposite Parties.  Considering these facts we hold that as the Opposite Parties have specifically come out with the case that the records of alleged transactions between the employer of the Complainant and the Opposite Parties are not available with the Opposite Parties and the Complainant has produced the similar letter issued by M.G. Consultancy Services Ltd. to the Opposite Parties dtd.27/02/1985 who are getting the annuity under Master Policy No.GA/12591, the Complainant is also entitled for the annuity under the Master Policy No.GA/12591 since 04/07/2011 from the Opposite Parties.  The submissions made by Shri. Navinkumar Poojari, Ld.Advocate for the Opposite Parties relying upon the order passed by the Hon’ble State Commission in First Appeal No.94/2005 in the case of Mahendra H. Thakkar V/s. LIC of India decided on 27/02/2008, in our view is not applicable to the facts of this case.  As the Opposite Parties have not contended and pleaded that there is no privity of contract between the Complainant and the Opposite Parties the submissions made by the Advocate for the Opposite Parties cannot be accepted.  Furthermore, the Opposite Parties have accepted the scheme to be implemented of annuity benefit to the officers of M.G. Consultancy Services Ltd. under Group Master Policy No.GA/12591.  Accordingly the Opposite Parties have given benefit under the said Group Master Policy GA/12591 to the individual officer on the basis of the similar correspondence made by M.G. Consultancy Services Ltd. such as in the case of Mts.Niru Gandhi, Mr.Ashok Agarwal and also as per the list submitted by the Opposite Parties before this Forum alongwith their written argument. We therefore, hold that the aforesaid case relied by the Advocate for the Opposite Parties of First Appeal No.94/2005 (Cited Supra) is not applicable to the facts of this case.  In our view the Complainant is entitled for the annuity under the Master Policy No.GA/12591 since 04/07/2011 as like Mrs.Niru Gandhi and the others of which the Opposite Parties have submitted the list alongwith their argument.  The submission made by the Advocate for the Complainant that the Complainant is entitled for Rs.8,74,845/- as prayed in prayer clause ‘E’ in our view is not justifiable.  The claim made by the Complainant to award the compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- in favour of the present Complainant for non performance by the Opposite Parties within specified time is also not justifiable.  We hold that for deficient service and unfair trade practice on the part of the Opposite Parties they are liable to pay Rs.50,000/- to the Complainant for the mental torture, harassment, etc.  The Opposite Parties are liable to pay cost of Rs.8,000/- to the Complainant towards this proceeding.  In the result the following order is passed –

O R D E R

i.          Complaint No.97/2013 is partly allowed against the Opposite Parties.

ii.         The Opposite Parties are directed to provide the benefit of annuity under Policy No.GA/12591 provided to the officers of M.G.

           Consultancy Services Ltd. as like Mrs.Niru Gandhi and others of which the Opposite Parties filed list alongwith their written  

           argument.  The required procedure for giving such benefit to the Complainant be complied by the Opposite Parties within 3

           months form the receipt of this order.

iii.       The Opposite Parties are directed to pay Rs.50,000/-(Rs.Fifty Thousand Only) as compensation towards mental torture and

          harassment caused to the Complainant for not providing annuity benefit which the Opposite Parties have provided to other

          similar officers of M.G. Consultancy Services Pvt. Ltd.

iv.       The Opposite Parties are directed to pay cost of this complaint to the tune of Rs.8,000/-(Rs.Eight Thousand Only) to the

          Complainant.

v.        The Opposite Parties is directed to comply with the aforesaid order within three month from the date of service of this order

          and failure to comply the said order within stipulated period the Opposite Party will be liable to pay interest @ 9% p.a. on the

          aforesaid amount till the realization of the said amount. 

vi.      Certified copies of this order be furnished to the parties.