State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Sahara India vs Basmati Devi on 21 July, 2017
IN THE STATE COMMISSION: DELHI
(Constituted under Section 9 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986)
Date of Decision: 21.07.2017
First Appeal No. 551/2012
(Arising out of the order dated 11.05.2012 passed in Complaint Case No. 804/2010 by the District
Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (East) Saini Enclave, New Delhi-110092)
In the matter of:
1. Sahara India
Through Regional Manager
18/268, Neelam Bata Road
NIT, Faridabad, Haryana
2. The Branch Manager
Sahara India
185, Baba Patwari Market
Main Road, Khichri Pur
Kalyanpuri, Delhi-110019
(Through its authorized representative) .........Appellants
Versus
1. Smt. Basmati Devi
W/o Late Ramlakhan
RPF Line, Jhuggi No. B-135
Daya Basti, Delhi-110035
(Wrongly mention in the order dated 11.05.2012
as NIT Faridabad, Haryana)
2. The National Insurance Company Ltd.
D.O. -4, Jeewan Bhawan Phase-1
43, Hazratganj
Lucknow (UP) ..........Respondents
CORAM
N P KAUSHIK - Member (Judicial)
1. Whether reporters of local newspaper be allowed to see the judgment? Yes
2. To be referred to the reporter or not? Yes
N P KAUSHIK - MEMBER (JUDICIAL)
JUDGMENT
1) Appellant Sahara India has impugned the orders dated 11.05.2012 passed by the Ld. District Forum (East) Saini Page 1 of 7 Enclave Delhi-110092. Vide impugned orders appellants were directed to pay to the respondent Smt. Basmati Devi (the complainant therein) the death claim of Rs. 1,00,000/- within a period of thirty days from the date of the receipt of the orders. Compensation and litigation charges to the tune of Rs. 5000/- and Rs. 3000/- respectively were also awarded in favour of the respondent/complainant.
2) Facts in brief of the complaint are that the husband of the complainant during his lifetime invested Rs. 10,000/- in one of the schemes of the appellants/OPs on 05.12.2005. Under the scheme, certain benefits relating to interest etc. were admissible to the investors. The said benefits are not relevant in the present context. One of the conditions of the scheme was that in the event of the death of the investor, after two years of investment but before three years thereof, his nominee was entitled to an amount of Rs. 1,00,000/-. Admittedly, complainant's husband died in a road accident in February 2008. Investment was made on 05.12.2005. Obviously the date of death was after two years of joining the scheme and at the same time before a period of three years since inception would come to an end. Complainant Smt. Basmati Devi informed the branch manager Sahara India Kalyan Puri Delhi of the factum of death of her husband. In response, OP-2 sent an amount of Rs. 12,860/-. It was the amount deposited by the investor and included in it the interest. In other words, the claim of the complainant to the amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- was paid.
3) On a complaint filed in the District Forum both the OPs i.e. Sahara India made a prayer for impleadment of National Insurance Company Ltd. Application was allowed and National Page 2 of 7 Insurance Company Ltd. was impleaded as OP-3. National Insurance Company Ltd. did not contest the complaint. It was proceeded against ex-parte.
4) Defence raised by Sahara India (OP-1 and OP-2) was that the investor in the present case had taken a contingency policy and dispute, if any, existed between the insured and the insurer. Another objection raised by OP-1 and OP-2 was that the claim form received from the complainant after the expiry of the prescribed period of thirty days was forwarded to OP-3 i.e. National Insurance Company Ltd. It was OP-3 who rejected the claim vide letter dated 12.06.2010 on the grounds that it was filed late.
5) Ld. District Forum allowed the complaint observing that there was no privity of contract between the complainant and the OP-3 i.e. National Insurance Company Ltd. Insurance, if any, was a bipartite arrangement between Sahara India and the National Insurance Company Ltd. Ld. District Forum thus held that the payment of the amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- to the complainant was the liability of Sahara India. Who may or may not get the same reimbursed from OP-3 i.e. National Insurance Company Ltd.
6) Present appeal has been filed by Sahara India on the grounds inter-alia that Sahara India was a necessary party to the complaint. Appellant took an objection that the complainant had received the amount of Rs. 12,860/- without any protest.
7) Main objection raised by the appellant i.e. Sahara India was that the complainant failed to furnish any document to satisfy the requirement of clause 18 of the agreement between Sahara India and the investor.
Page 3 of 78) I have heard the arguments addressed by the counsel for the Appellant/Sahara India Sh. Simranjeet Singh Advocate, Counsel for the Respondent-1/complainant Sh. Vipin Kumar Mishra Advocate and the Counsel for the Respondent-2/National Insurance Company Ltd. Sh. Ankur Jately Advocate, at length.
9) Appellant has placed reliance upon the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Smt. Shimla Sharma and Ors. (Revision Petition No. 527/2012 decided by the Hon'ble National Commission vide orders dated 15.04.2013). On the contrary, Counsel for the Respondent-1/complainant has relied upon the case of Branch Manager Sahara India Commercial Corporation Ltd. & Ors. v. Satya Narayan Yadav & Anr. (Revision Petition No. 73/2017 decided on 24.01.2017).
10) The case of Branch Manager Sahara India Commercial Corporation Ltd. & Ors. (supra) pertains to the same scheme called Rajat Yojna which was joined by the complainant in the present case. In the said case Sahara India had settled the claim by paying Rs. 50,000/- to the complainant therein. Sahara India had requested National Insurance Company Ltd. to pay the balance amount to the complainant therein. Stand taken by the National Insurance Company Ltd. was that it had nothing to do with the complainant and was not liable to indemnify him. Ld. District Forum in the said case directed Sahara India to pay to the complainant therein an amount of Rs. 1,50,000/- alongwith interest @ 7% p.a. Compensation and costs of litigation was quantified @ Rs. 25,000/-. An appeal preferred against the said orders was dismissed by the State Commission. Sahara India filed a revision petition in the Hon'ble National Commission.
Page 4 of 7Relevant portion of the orders dated 24.01.2017 is reproduced below:
"The learned counsel for the petitioner company submits that since they had taken an insurance policy from the National Insurance Company, the balance amount of Rs. 1,50,000/- was payable by the said insurance company and not by the petitioner company. I however, find no merit in this contention. Clause-18 of the terms and conditions, governing the scheme in which the investment was made by the deceased, clearly shows that in the event of the death of the investor in an accident, his nominee was entitled to the amount specified in the said clause. Admittedly, the amount payable in terms of the option exercised by the deceased came to Rs. 2,00,000/-. The aforesaid clause does not provide for payment of the accidental benefit by National Insurance Company or any other insurer of the petitioner. The said clause is an agreement between the petitioner and the deceased where-under in the event of his death in an accident his nominee was entitled to a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/-. If the petitioner company had an arrangement with National Insurance Company or any other insurer for making the whole or a part of the said payment, it is for the petitioner company to pursue its remedy against such an insurer. Admittedly, the deceased was not in a party to the alleged agreement/arrangement/policy between the Petitioner Company and National Insurance Company. Therefore, the complainant cannot be asked to recover the balance amount of Rs. 1,50,000/- from the insurance company. The deceased having made investment in the scheme of the petitioner company taking into consideration accidental benefit payable to his nominee in the event of his death in an accident, the petitioner company cannot be allowed to back out of the promise made by it and the failure of the petitioner company to pay the balance amount of Rs. 1,50,000/- to the complainant amounts to deficiency in the services."
11) Now coming to the case cited by the appellant i.e. the case of Smt. Shimla Sharma and Ors. (supra), the Hon'ble National Commission had disposed of two appeals bearing nos. 1451/2010 and 1488/2010. In appeal no. 1451/2010 State Commission had held that the insurance company was liable to Page 5 of 7 pay the insured amount under the policy. Since the National Insurance Company Ltd. had not filed any appeal, liability to pay the amount remained intact. Issue that arose in appeal no. 1488/2010 was whether the National Insurance Company was required to pay a consolidated amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- towards the insured amount of six investments made by the husband of the complainant therein. State Commission had directed the National Insurance Company Ltd. to pay an amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- on each investment. The Hon'ble National Commission had opined that the amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- was to be paid on each investment made by the insured. Perusal of the case thus relied upon shows that the issues adjudicated upon have no relevance to the case in hand.
12) In the case of Branch Manager Sahara India Commercial Corporation Ltd. (supra), the issue squarely covers the case in hand. Hon'ble National Commission had observed that the (deceased) predecessor-in-interest of the complainant therein was not a party to the agreement/arrangement between him and the National Insurance Company. By this logic complainant could not be asked to recover any amount from the National Insurance Company Ltd. In the present case too there is no agreement between the husband of the complainant and the insurance company. Bipartite agreement exists only between the husband of the complainant on the one hand and the respondent Sahara India on the other side.
13) National Insurance Company Ltd. in the present case was proceeded against ex-parte in the District Forum. During the course of arguments Ld. Counsel for the appellant/Sahara India Page 6 of 7 has referred to the 'guidelines on group insurance policies' in support of his contention that it was the liability of the insurance company to pay to the complainant the amount of Rs. 1,00,000/-. Perusal of the said guidelines shows the duty and liability of a group/organization in respect of a group insurance policy. It does not deal with a situation when no agreement between the insurer and a complainant exists. Clearly the said guideline does not help the appellant in any manner. Before parting it may be mentioned here that the Ld. Counsel for the appellant Sahara India and the insurance company took a plea that the District Forum did not have territorial jurisdiction as the complainant belonged to Faridabad and Sahara India had its regional office in NIT Faridabad. As discussed above, complainant in the present case had made her correspondence with Sahara India Kalyanpuri Delhi i.e. OP-2. Factum of death of the husband of the complainant was informed to OP-2 only by the complainant. OP-2 had informed her that her application would be processed later. Now it does not lie in the mouth of Sahara India to take a plea that the District Forum in Delhi did not have the jurisdiction. The case of Sonic Surgical relied upon by the appellant is hence of no avail.
14) In view of the discussion above, I am of the considered opinion that the appeal is devoid of merits. The same is hence dismissed with costs of Rs. 20,000/-.
15) Copy of the orders be made available to the parties free of costs as per rules and thereafter the file be consigned to Records.
(N P KAUSHIK) MEMBER (JUDICIAL) (Fatima) Page 7 of 7