State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Pacl India Limited vs Purnima Shukla on 4 January, 2016
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
PUNJAB
DAKSHIN MARG, SECTOR 37-A, CHANDIGARH.
First Appeal No.1457 of 2014
Date of institution : 03.11.2014
Date of decision : 04.01.2016
1. PACL India Limited (now known as PACL Limited), Regd.
Office 22, 3rd Floor, Amber Tower, Sansar Chand, Jaipur-
3002004, through its Managing Director.
2. PACL India Limited (now known as PACL Limited), Corporate
Office at 7th Floor, Gopal Dass Bhawan, 28 Barakhamba Road,
New Delhi-110001, through its Corporate Manager.
3. PACL India Limited (now known as PACL Limited), Branch
Office, SCF 24, New Improvement Trust, Barnala, through its
Branch Manager.
....Appellants/Opposite Parties
Versus
Purnima Shukla widow of Raju Shukla, r/o Vidhya Bhawan,
Narayanpur, District Balia (UP), now residing at Moran Wali Pahi,
Prem Nagar, Dhanaula Road, Barnala, Tehsil and District Barnala.
....Respondent/Complainant
First Appeal against the order dated
09.09.2014 of the District Consumer
Disputes Redressal Forum, Barnala.
Quorum:-
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Gurdev Singh, President
Mr. Vinod Kumar Gupta, Member
Mr. Upjeet Singh Brar, Member Present:-
For the appellants : Shri D.K. Singal, Advocate For the respondent : Shri Hitesh Verma, Advocate JUSTICE GURDEV SINGH, PRESIDENT :
This appeal has been preferred by the appellants/opposite parties against the order dated 09.09.2014 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Barnala (in First Appeal No.1457 of 2014 2 short, "District Forum"), vide which the complaint filed by Purnima Shukla, respondent/complainant, under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, was allowed and the opposite parties were directed to refund the amount of Rs.32,400/-, along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of accident till the realization of that amount and to pay accidental death benefit of Rs.56,250/-, along with interest at the said rate from the date of accident till the realization of that amount and Rs.20,000/-, as compensation for the mental and physical harassment suffered by the complainant; extremely poor widow, who is leading a miserable life.
2. The complainant alleged, in her complaint, that Raju Shukla, who was her husband, approached the office of opposite party No.3 at Barnala for obtaining the beneficial investment scheme of the opposite parties for future life and their brochure was shown to him and he was also explained the benefits of various investment plans. He chose Plan No.1-1 mentioned at Page-38 of the brochure and as per that plan, he was to pay Rs.37,500/- for a plot of 750 square yards in monthly instalments of Rs.600/- and at the end of the period of 66 months, the expected value was to be Rs.54,550/- and accidental death benefit under that plan was Rs.56,250/- He paid the first instalment, vide receipt No.F0903966 dated 18.05.2009 and he was registered under No.U017112124 and he was given the letter bearing serial No.AA02B0799031 on the same date. An agreement was executed between him and the opposite parties regarding the all said terms. Upto 18.10.2013, he paid 53 instalments and, as such, paid the total amount of Rs.32,400/-. It First Appeal No.1457 of 2014 3 was assured by opposite party No.3 that in case he was not interested in taking the said plot, then the amount would be refunded to him, along with interest. He died on 09.11.2013 in a rail accident in between Barnala and Shekha Railway Station, near K.M. No.107/03 and that fact was duly verified by G.R.P., Barnala on 04.12.2013. The postmortem examination on his dead body was performed by Medical Officer, Civil Hospital, Barnala, on 09.11.2013 and intimation regarding his death was sent to opposite party No.3. She (complainant) showed her inability to continue with the investment plan made by her husband; upon which some blank printed forms were got signed from her by opposite party No.3, on the assurance that the amount, so paid by her husband, would be refunded, along with interest and she would also be paid the accidental compensation. She made repeated requests and demands for payment of those amounts, but the opposite parties failed to settle her claim. Thereafter, she sent legal registered notice to them on 11.06.2014, through Sh. Nasib Chand, Advocate, for settling the claim and for making the payment of the amounts due to her, along with interest at the rate of 12% per annum. Due to typographical mistake, the accidental compensation in the notice was mentioned as Rs.45,000/-, instead of Rs.56,250/-. On account of the non-payment of the said amounts by the opposite parties, she suffered great mental shock, pain, agony and harassment. She is helpless widow lady, having two minor children and without any source of income. She prayed for the issuance of following directions to the opposite parties:-
First Appeal No.1457 of 2014 4
i) to pay the amount of Rs.32,400/-;
ii) to pay the amount of Rs.56,250/-, on account of accidental
compensation;
iii) to pay Rs.50,000/-, as compensation for mental shock, pain, agony and harassment suffered by her;
iv) to pay Rs.15,000/-, as litigation expenses; and
v) to pay interest at the rate of 18% per annum on the above said amounts (total Rs.1,53,650/-).
3. After the service of the opposite parties, they put in their appearance through Sh. B.K. Menon, Advocate, who filed his Memorandum of Appearance on 27.08.2014 and the complaint was adjourned to 08.09.2014 for filing the Power of Attorney and the written reply. On that date, the opposite parties did not appear before the District Forum and were proceeded against ex parte.
4. To succeed in the complaint, the complainant proved on record her affidavit Ex.C-1; affidavit of Rajesh Shukla, brother of the deceased, Ex.C-2; and documents Ex.C-3 to Ex.C-18.
5. The District Forum, after going through the averments made in the complaint, the evidence produced by the complainant in support of those averments and hearing learned counsel on her behalf, allowed the complaint, vide aforesaid order.
6. We have heard learned counsel for both the sides and have carefully gone through the records of the case.
7. It was submitted by the learned counsel for the appellants/opposite parties that the District Forum committed an First Appeal No.1457 of 2014 5 illegality, by allowing the amount of Rs.56,250/-, as accidental compensation; whereas no such accidental death benefit was payable as per the plan, so opted for by Raju Shukla, deceased. The District Forum erred, while recording a finding in favour of the complainant, on the basis of the brochure Ex.C-10 and while ignoring the other relevant documents proved by the complainant herself. No such brochure was ever issued by the opposite parties and a Public Notice was published in the newspaper that some mischievous elements were issuing such a brochure for tarnishing the image of the opposite parties and that such a brochure was never issued by them. When no such accidental death benefit was permissible under the plan, so adopted by Raju Shukla, no such amount could have been awarded by the District Forum and it committed an illegality, by allowing that benefit. According to him, that part of the order passed by the District Forum is liable to be set aside.
8. On the other hand, it was submitted by the learned counsel for the complainant that correct findings were recorded by the District Forum on the basis of the evidence produced by the complainant; which remained unrebutted. In fact, the opposite parties have no case, at all, and that was the reason for them for absenting themselves from the District Forum, after having initially put in their appearance, through their counsel. The brochure Ex.C- 9/Ex.C-10, upon which the finding was recorded by the District Forum, was duly issued by the opposite parties and as per the details of the Plan, opted for by Raju Shukla, the said accidental First Appeal No.1457 of 2014 6 death benefit was payable to his widow. The District Forum did not commit any illegality, while awarding the amount so mentioned in the brochure.
9. The District Forum mainly recorded the finding in favour of the complainant regarding the payment of the accidental death benefit, on the ground that the opposite parties chose to remain ex parte and, as such, they (District Forum) had no alternative, except to believe the allegations of the complainant; which appear to be cogent, reliable and confidence inspiring. It was also mentioned in the impugned order that the attention was drawn towards Ex.C-10, wherein it was mentioned that the husband of the complainant was entitled to the amount of Rs.56,250/-, on account of accidental death benefit. In fact, the findings were recorded by the District Forum, without minutely going through the evidence produced by the complainant. The said brochure Ex.C-9-C-10 was merely tendered in evidence and no evidence was produced to the effect that this brochure was actually issued by the opposite parties. Even if such a brochure had been issued, the District Forum was required to record the findings on the basis of the terms and conditions, as printed on the backside of the registration letter; which was proved on the record by the complainant herself as Ex.C-7. The complainant did not prove on record the application, which was given by Raju Shukla for investing the amount with the opposite parties for the purchase of plot. The same was produced by the opposite parties in the present appeal, by way of additional evidence, as Ex.A-9. As per this application, Raju Shukla had opted for Plan No.1-1. The proforma of First Appeal No.1457 of 2014 7 the agreement forms part of that application form; which was duly signed by him and the opposite parties. There was no such term or condition in the agreement to pay the accidental death benefit, in case of the death of the applicant.
10. By way of additional evidence, the opposite parties also proved the Public Notice, printed in the newspaper on 02.01.2009, Ex.A-10; in which they made it clear to the general public that no such brochure had been printed and published by them and such brochures are being printed and issued by some unwanted elements. In fact, the Plan 1-1, so opted for by Raju Shukla, was not the plan so mentioned in the alleged brochure and upon which the reliance was placed by the District Forum, while recording the finding in favour of the complainant. It becomes very much clear from the terms and conditions, so printed on the back of the registration letter Ex.C-7, that this plan 1-1 was the "Instalment Payment Plan" for the payment of the price of the plot in 66 instalments. The District Forum committed an illegality, while ignoring the Plan No.1-1, so mentioned in these general terms and conditions and by relying upon the brochure, which was unauthenticated one and there was no such term or condition in the agreement for the payment of the accidental death benefit. Therefore, the finding recorded by it to that effect cannot be sustained and is liable to be set aside.
11. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the opposite parties is partly allowed and the direction issued by the District Forum to pay the accidental death benefit of Rs.56,250/-, along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of accident till the realization of First Appeal No.1457 of 2014 8 that amount, is set aside; whereas the other part of the order passed by the District Forum is upheld.
12. The sum of Rs.25,000/- deposited at the time of filing of the appeal, along with interest which has accrued thereon, if any, shall be remitted by the registry to the respondent/complainant, by way of a crossed cheque/demand draft after the expiry of 45 days of the sending of certified copy of the order to them.
13. The arguments in this case were heard on 21.12.2015 and the order was reserved. Now, the order be communicated to the parties.
14. The appeal could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of court cases.
(JUSTICE GURDEV SINGH) PRESIDENT (VINOD KUMAR GUPTA) MEMBER (UPJEET SINGH BRAR) MEMBER January 04, 2016.
(Gurmeet S)