This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner SBI Life Insurance Co. Ltd. & anr. against the order dated 01.02.2017 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Rajasthan, (in short ‘the State Commission’) passed in FA No.60 of 2017.

2.      Brief facts relevant for disposal of the revision petition are that respondent/complainant filed a consumer complaint stating that he did not receive the policy inspite of payment of amount of premium.  The complaint was contested by filing the written statement by way of counter-affidavit by an Officer namely, Ms. Neelam Singh of the petitioner bank.  The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Jaipur, (in short ‘the District Forum’) allowed the complaint vide its order dated 20.12.2016 as under:-

        “The complaint of the complainant is allowed.  It is directed that the opposite party would pay a sum of Rs.15000/- on account of refund of the premium along with the interest @9% from 19.12.2014 as well as Rs.5000/- on account of costs and Rs.5000/- on account of damages within 2 months in case opposite party failed to pay the same within the period of 2 months then opposite party would be liable to pay the aforesaid amount along with @9% per annum.  The proceedings under Section 340 Cr.P.C. will be initiated against Ms. Neelam Singh.”

3.      Aggrieved particularly with order of the District Forum in respect of initiation of proceedings under Section 340 of Cr.P.C., petitioner preferred appeal before the State Commission bearing no. 60 of 2017.  The State Commission dismissed the appeal on the ground that the petitioner may raise the issues mentioned in the memo of appeal before the District Forum as only the notice has been directed to be issued under Section 340 of Cr.P.C.

4.      Hence the present revision petition.

5.      Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.  The respondent was proceeded ex parte vide order dated 28.03.2018 of this Commission. 

6.      Learned counsel for the petitioners stated that the counter-affidavit dated 16.08.2016 was filed by Ms. Neelam Singh, Senior Manager Legal, SBI Life Insurance Company Ltd.  The District Forum has observed that two different statements have been given in the counter-affidavit for non-supply of policy to the complainant.  The District Forum has given the following observations:-

“11.       Pertinently the deponent namely Ms. Neelam Singh who has submitted an affidavit wherein it has been deposed that policy was sent to the Jaipur Branch and about handing over the policy to the complainant by hand.  One of the aforesaid fact is false as such a notice u/s 340 Cr.P.C. is issued against Ms. Neelam singh on account of submitting a false fact in her affidavit.  The proceedings u/s 340 Cr.P.C. be initiated against Ms. Neelam Singh separately.”

7.      The learned counsel stated that the counter-affidavit was prepared by the office staff and was signed by the officer concerned.  Moreover, proceedings under Section 340 of the Cr.P.C. is to be initiated only in the interest of justice and in the present case the matter has already been decided by the District Forum and the compliance has been made by the opposite parties.  The respondent/complainant may not be interested in the proceedings under Section 340 of Cr.P.C. and that is why, inspite of service of notice, he has not appeared before this Commission.  In fact the following two averments have been made:-

“ The policy was issued with date of commencement 25.05.2013 and it is specifically submitted that the opposite parties have dispatched the Original policy document to the address of the complainant on 28/05/2013 through Speed Post AWB no.EA100574568IN and the same was returned undelivered on 17/06/2013. Further, we have dispatched the policy document on 30/07/2013 to Jaipur Branch for onward delivery to the complainant.  The complainant never complained about non receipt of the policy document.”     

      The policy document was dispatched to the complainant’s address and the same was returned undelivered.  Later, the policy document was handed over to the person authorised by the complainant.”

8.      Learned counsel stated that the proceedings under Section 340 of Cr.P.C. against Ms. Neelam Singh are not going to help in administration of justice. First of all, there is no contradiction in the two statements made by the deponent, however, even if there is some discrepancy, the petitioner may be penalised with some costs. 

9.      It was argued by the learned counsel that it was quite possible that the branch may have given the policy document to the authorised representative of the complainant,  therefore there is no contradiction in the two statements rather they may be read one after the other.  Learned counsel referred to the judgment of this Commission in Reliance India Mobile Ltd. Mr. Man Mohan Vs. Hari Chand Gupta, RP No.53 of 2006, decided on 08.05.2006 (NC) and specifically read out the following portions of the judgment:-

“23. In view of the language used in Section 340 CrPC the court is not bound to make a complaint regarding commission of an offence referred to in Section 195(1)(b), as the section is conditioned by the words court is of opinion that it is expedient in the interests of justice. This shows that such a course will be adopted only if the interest of justice requires and not in every case. Before filing of the complaint, the court may hold a preliminary enquiry and record a finding to the effect that it is expedient in the interests of justice that enquiry should be made into any of the offences referred to in Section 195(1)(b). This expediency will normally be judged by the court by weighing not the magnitude of injury suffered by the person affected by such forgery or forged document, but having regard to the effect or impact, such commission of offence has upon administration of justice. It is possible that such forged document or forgery may cause a very serious or substantial injury to a person in the sense that it may deprive him of a very valuable property or status or the like, but such document may be just a piece of evidence produced or given in evidence in court, where voluminous evidence may have been adduced and the effect of such piece of evidence on the broad concept of administration of justice may be minimal. In such circumstances, the court may not consider it expedient in the interest of justice to make a complaint. The broad view of clause (b)(ii), as canvassed by learned counsel for the appellants, would render the victim of such forgery or forged document remediless. Any interpretation which leads to a situation where a victim of a crime is rendered remediless, has to be discarded.

However, for filing false and incorrect affidavit before the Consumer Fora  that the telephone was shifted from Chandigarh to Kurukshetra, appropriate action is required to be taken against the petitioner.  It should be borne in mind  that Consumer Fora are required to decide the matter  speedily  and render equitable justice to the consumer.  The practice of making false and incorrect statements and the practice of denial of each and every sentence submitted by the claimant/complainant without any justifiable ground,  requires to be controlled. 

For false affidavits or misleading statements in a pending proceedings deponents are required to be dealt appropriately by imposing punitive damages so that in future they or others may not indulge in such practice.                              

In this view of the matter,   punitive  damages  are required  to be enhanced.

As stated above,  false statement has been made  in the affidavit that phone of the complainant was shifted from  Chandigarh region to Kurukshetra region.   On this ground, the State Commission  has directed the Petitioner to pay Rs.50,000/- as punitive damages.   In our view,  for making such false statement in the affidavit by the officer of the  Reliance Infocomm Ltd.  Petitioner, the amount is not sufficient.   Punitive damages are required to be enhanced so that in future officers of the Petitioner  nor officers of other such big companies indulge in such practices.”  

10.    From the view taken by this Commission in Reliance India Mobile Ltd. Mr. Man Mohan Vs. Hari Chand Gupta, (supra), it is clear that no fruitful purpose will be served, if proceedings under Section 340 of Cr.P.C. are concluded and complaint is filed, so far as the administration of justice in the consumer forum is concerned, because in the present case the relief has already been granted to the complainant by the District Forum on the basis of other evidence available on record and the version of the opposite parties has not been  accepted.  The petitioner is ready to deposit any penalty if there is some discrepancy in the two statements given in the counter-affidavit in respect of delivery of policy to the complainant.

11.    I have given a thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner and have examined the material on record.  The learned counsel for the petitioner has tried to establish that the two statements mentioned in the counter –affidavit are not contradictory to each other and they may be considered as supplementary to each other. However, the position is not explained in the counter-affidavit and the officer of the petitioner should have been more vigilant in signing the affidavit and filing the same because the two statements given do not appear to be supplementary on the face of it and they give two different facts in respect of supply of policy document to the complainant.  However, the petitioner is ready to accept the penalty in respect of this mistake on behalf of the officer of the petitioner and therefore, in the light of decision of this Commission in Reliance India Mobile Ltd. Mr. Man Mohan Vs. Hari Chand Gupta, (supra) , I deem it appropriate to allow the revision petition and to set aside the order of the District Forum in respect of giving notice to Ms. Neelam Singh, Officer of the petitioner for proceedings under Section 340 Cr.P.C. on the following conditions:

(i)   Cost of Rs.30,000/-(rupees thirty thousand only) shall be deposited by the petitioner with the Consumer Legal Aid Account of this Commission within a period of four weeks.

(ii)  An amount of Rs.20,000/- (rupees twenty thousand only) shall be paid to the respondent/complainant by way of demand draft in her name within a period of four weeks.

(iii) The petitioner shall deduct Rs.10,000/- (rupees ten thousand only) from the salary of Ms. Neelam Singh, Officer of the petitioner before depositing Rs.30,000/- (rupees thirty thousand only) with Consumer Legal Aid Account of this Commission.

12.    The petitioner shall submit the proof of the above deposit/payment/deduction in terms of the above order before the next date.  List the matter on 18.10.2019 for compliance.

13.    Copy of the order be sent to the District Forum and the respondent.