Chandigarh

DF-II

CC/74/2019

Shambhu Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Managing Director, Sahara Credit Cooperative Society Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Adv. Ashok Kumar Chauhan

12 Dec 2022

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-II

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

Consumer Complaint No.	:	74/2019
Date of Institution	:	12.02.2019
Date of Decision	:	12.12.2022

 

                     

            

 

Shambhu Singh aged 60 years son of Sh.Daroga Singh resident of House No.1609, Small Flats, Dhanas, UT, Chandigarh

                 ...  Complainant.

Versus

1.  The Managing Director, Sahara Credit Cooperative Society Ltd., Regd. Office Sahara India Bhawan, 1, Kapoorthala Complex Aliganj, Lucknow-226024.

2.  Sahara Credit Cooperative Society Ltd., SCO No.1110-1111, Sector 22, Chandigarh through its Manager/Authorized Representative.

…. Opposite Parties.

 

BEFORE:
	SMT.PRITI MALHOTRA,	PRESIDING MEMBER
	SHRI B.M.SHARMA	MEMBER
Argued by:-
	Sh.Ashok Kumar Chauhan, Adv. for complainant
	Ms.Tanya Kaushik, Advocate for OPs.

 

 

PER PRITI MALHOTRA, PRESIDING MEMBER

1.     Briefly stated, the facts of case as alleged by the complainant are that  his son namely Sh.Bittu purcahsed a policy bearing a/c No.23976202840 from the OPs. His son had to pay Rs.4500/- per month to the OPs as premium and he was nominee under the said policy. One of the premium receipt dated 31.08.2017 has been attached as Annexure C-1. On death of the LA (his son), the OPs had to pay Rs.5.00 lakhs.  On 17.10.2017, the LA (Bittu) had expired in a roadside accident and the complainant being the nominee after completing all the relevant formalities requested the OPs to release the death claim. However, the OPs have only paid a sum of Rs.54000/- deposited as premium by his son till his death and withhold the remaining claim of Rs.4.46 lakhs without any justification and the same has not been released to him despite his repeated requests/visits. Finally, the complainant got served a legal notice dated 14.12.2018 upon the OPs but to no effect. Alleging that the aforesaid acts of omission and commission on the part of the OPs amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice, the complainant has filed the instant complaint.
2.     The OPs contested the consumer complaint, filed their written reply and, inter alia, raised the preliminary objections that the complaint is wholly misconceived and vexatious; the complaint is a premature; there is no relationship of consumer and service provider inter se the complainant and the OPs and that this Commission has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint and the same is liable to be referred to the arbitrator as per Clause of the terms and conditions of the scheme. It has further been pleaded that the relationship between the complainant and the OPs is of Member and Society and therefore, for any dispute between the society and the Member, consumer complaint is not maintainable.  It has been pleaded that without agreement regarding life insurance, the complainant is claiming the insurance benefit of Rs.5.00 lakhs and the Ops never promised or agreed to provide life insurance benefit to the nominee of its member namely Mr.Bittu. The OPs are not insurance company nor doing insurance business.   The complainant is nominee of Mr.Bittu who had made his share as a member of the society under “Sahara C.Anokha scheme”.  It has been admitted that the complainant’s son had opened the said account to share Rs.4500/- per month for a period of 48 months after understanding the terms and conditions of the scheme. He deposited only Rs.54000/- with the OPs that was duly paid to the complainant and he received the same in full and final satisfaction without any demur.  It has been denied that the complainant is entitled to get Rs.5.00 lakhs as alleged. It has further been pleaded that Clause 8 of the terms and conditions of the scheme merely provides benefit of “Death Help”, the nature of which is that of “interest free loan” and mere death of the member account holder does not entitle the nominee to get “Death Help Loan”. Remaining averments have been denied, being false. Pleading that there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on their part, OPs prayed for dismissal of the consumer complaint.
3.     The Complainant filed rejoinder to the written reply of the OPs controverting their stand and reiterating his own.
4.     Parties led evidence by way of affidavits and documents.
5.     We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record as well as written submissions.
6.      The first plea of the OPs is that the instant consumer complaint is not maintainable under provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as relation between the complainant and OPs is of member and the Society. However, we do not find any weight in this submission as it is not a pure dispute between members of the cooperative Society regarding its governance. In fact, it is a dispute with regard to deposit of amount under the scheme of the OPs for a particular period and refund of the same along with benefits. As such, the same certainly amounts to rendering of ‘service’ as defined under the Act. There is element of ‘deficiency in service’ as well as ‘unfair trade practice’ due to non-performance of the contract, whereby service of the OPs has been hired by the complainant by depositing the above said amount with them. Besides this, it is well settled law that remedy before the Consumer Forum is in addition to and not in derogation to the provisions of any other law for the time being in force. Here we are also strengthened by the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in "Secretary, Thirumurugan Co-operative Agricultural Credit Society Versus M. Lalitha (Dead) through LRs and others", 2004(1) CLT 456 in which it was held as under:-

“11. From the statement of objects and reasons and the scheme of 1986 Act, it is apparent that the main objective of the Act is to provide for better protection of the interest of the consumer and for that purpose to provide for better redressal, mechanism through which cheaper, easier, expeditious and effective redressal is made available to consumers. To serve the purpose of the Act, various quasi judicial forums are set up at the district, State and National level with wide range of powers vested in them. These quasi judicial forums, observing the principles of natural justice, are empowered to give relief of a specific nature and to award, wherever 'appropriate, compensation to the consumers and to impose penalities for non-compliance of their orders.

12.  As per Section 3 of the Act, as already stated above, the provisions of the Act shall be in addition to and not in derogation to any other provisions of any other law for the time being in force. Having due regard to the scheme of the Act and purpose sought to be achieved to protect the interest of the consumers, better the provisions are to be interpreted broadly, positively and purposefully in the context of the present case to give meaning to additional/extended jurisdiction, particularly when Section 3 seeks to provide remedy under the Act in addition to other remedies provided under other Acts unless there is clear bar."

7.      Further, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Virender Jain Vs. Alaknanda Co op Group Housing Society Ltd., Civil Appeal No.64 of 2010 and connected matters, decided on 13.04.2013 had also widened the scope of CPA by holding that disputes between members and their Society can be decided by the Consumer Fora. The principle of law laid down in the aforesaid judgments is squarely applicable to the facts of the case in hand. Hence, it is held that the instant consumer complaint is maintainable against the OPs and this Commission has got jurisdiction to entertain and decide the same under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act.
8.      The next plea taken by the OPs is that the dispute between the parties is liable to be referred to arbitration, as per the Multi State Co-operative Society Act, 2002. In this respect, it needs to be mentioned that the Larger Bench of the Hon’ble National Commission, vide order dated 13.07.2017, passed in Consumer Complaint No.701 of 2015 titled as Aftab Singh v. EMAAR MGF Land Limited & Anr., held that an Arbitration Clause in the afore-stated kind of Agreements between the Complainants and the Builder cannot circumscribe jurisdiction of a Consumer Fora, notwithstanding the amendments made to Section 8 of the Arbitration Act, 1996. The Civil Appeal No.(s) 23512-23513 of 2017 (M/s EMAAR MGF Land Limited & Anr. Vs. Aftab Singh) filed against the said order of the Hon’ble National Commission has also been dismissed by the Hon’ble Apex Court vide order dated 13.02.2018. Even Review Petition (C) Nos.2629-2630 of 2018 filed against above said order was also dismissed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court vide judgment dated 10.12.2018. Consequently, it is held that existence of Arbitration Clause in the agreement is not a bar to resolve the present dispute by this Commission. Thus, this objection of the opposite parties is also rejected.
9.     A thorough perusal of the rival pleadings of the parties and documentary evidence on file clearly shows that the son of the complainant namely Sh.Bittu obtained the policy as alleged from the OPs and regularly paid monthly premium of Rs.4500/- per month till the date of his death i.e. 17.10.2017,  occurred due to roadside accident. It is also evident from the record that the complainant/nominee under the policy has not been given all the due benefits as per the terms and conditions of the insurance policy on account of death of the policy holder.  The OPs have merely paid as sum of Rs.54000/- alleging to be the premium so received from the policy holder.
10.     Further, the perusal of Clause 8 of the scheme/policy reproduced in para 24 of the additional plea of the written statement reveals that the claim of the complainant is fully covered under the terms of the policy so mentioned. So far as the age of the policy holder is concerned, the age of the policy holder might be between 18 to 65 years at the time of his death and the plea of the OPs that the age of the policy holder at the time of taking the policy was below 18 years is of no help to the OPs to eschew the claim to the complainant/nominee of the policy holder as the OPs were fully aware of the age of the policy holder when they had issued the policy in question to him and accepted the premium so paid.  In our considered view, the OPs cannot escape from their liability under the terms and conditions of the insurance policy to indemnify the nominee on account of death of the LA. 
11.     Besides this, the complainant has alleged that the policy holder had paid in total a sum of Rs.55,950/- towards the premium to the OPs and prove the same, he has also placed on record the details of the payment made by the policy holder to the OPs.  The OPs have, thus, resorted to unfair trade practice by not paying the benefits under the policy in question to the nominee of the policy holder and also by refunding the premium amount of Rs.54,000/- only instead of Rs.55,950/-.
12.     Taking into consideration the above discussion and findings, we are of the opinion that the OPs not only remained deficient in their service but also resorted to unfair trade practice.  Therefore, the present complaint is partly allowed against the OPs with direction to pay all the benefits under the terms and conditions of the policy/scheme to the complainant/nominee of the policy holder less the amount already paid to the complainant, apart from paying a compository amount of Rs.25,000/- towards compensation for the harassment suffered by him and for thrusting avoidable litigation upon him.
13.     This order shall be complied with by the OPs within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which it shall be liable to pay additional cost of Rs.15,000/- apart from above relief.
14.     The pending application (s), if any, stands disposed of accordingly.
15.     Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room.

 

Announced 12/12/2022
	Sd/- (PRITI MALHOTRA) PRESIDING MEMBER
	Sd/-
	(B.M.SHARMA) MEMBER