National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Sahara India Commercial Corporation ... vs Sanjay Mangal & Anr. on 26 April, 2017
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI REVISION PETITION NO. 23 OF 2015 (Against the Order dated 14/10/2014 in Appeal No. 848/2013 of the State Commission Rajasthan) 1. SAHARA INDIA COMMERCIAL CORPORATION LTD. & 2 ORS. SECTOR OFFICE, SHIVMANSION,ASHOK MARG, NAGINA BAG,
THROUGH ITS SECTOR CHIEF AJMER RAJASTHAN 2. SAHARA INDIA COMMERCIA CORPORATION LTD., AREA OFFICE, JODHPUR,SECOND FLOOR,
RAIBAHADUR BAZAR,
MAHATMA GANDHI HOSPITAL ROAD,
THROUGH ITS ZONAL CHIEF SH.B.K SRIVASTAVA, JODHPUR RAJASTHAN 3. SAHARA INDIA COMMAND OFFICE, SAHARA INDIA BHAWAN,
1, KAPOORTHALA COMPLEX,
LUCKNOW - 226 024 U.P ...........Petitioner(s) Versus 1. MANOJ MANGAL S/O SH.KAILASH CHANDRA MANGAL,
R/O E-38, SHASTRINAGAR, AJMER RAJASTHAN ...........Respondent(s) REVISION PETITION NO. 24 OF 2015 (Against the Order dated 14/10/2014 in Appeal No. 849/2013 of the State Commission Rajasthan) 1. SAHARA INDIA COMMERCIAL CORPORATION LTD. & 2 ORS. SECTOR OFFICE SHIVMANSION, ASHOK MARG, NAGINA BAG.
THROUGH ITS SECTOR CHIEF,
AJMER RAJASTHAN 2. SAHARA INDIA COMMERCIAL CORPORATION LTD, AREA OFFICE, JODHPUR, SECTOR FLOOR, RAIBAHADUR BAZAR, MAHATAMA GANDHI HOSPITAL ROAD, JODHPUR RAJASTHAN 3. SAHARA INDIA, COMMAND OFFICE,
SAHARA INDIA BHAWAN,
1 KAPOORTHALA COMPLEX,
LUCKNOW--226024 U.P ...........Petitioner(s) Versus 1. SANJAY MANGAL S/O SH. KAILASH CHANDRA MANGAL, R/O E-38, SHASTRI NAGAR,
AJMER RAJASTHAN ...........Respondent(s) REVISION PETITION NO. 25 OF 2015 (Against the Order dated 14/10/2014 in Appeal No. 850/2013 of the State Commission Rajasthan) 1. SAHARA INDIA COMMERCIAL CORPORATION LTD. & 2 ORS. SECTOR OFFICE SHIVMANSION, ASHOK MARG, NAGINA BAG. THROUGH ITS SECTOR CHIEF,
AJMER RAJASTHAN 2. SAHARA INDIA COMMERCIAL CORPORATION LTD, AREA OFFICE, JODHPUR,SECOND FLOOR, RAIBAHADUR BAZAR, THROUGH ITS ZONAL CHIEF , SH.B.K SRIVASTAVA,
JODHPUR RAJASTHAN 3. SAHARA INDIA, COMMAND OFFICE, SAHARA INDIA BHAWAN, 1 KAPOORTHALA COMPLEX,
LUCKNOW--226024 U.P ...........Petitioner(s) Versus 1. SANJAY MANGAL & ANR. S/O SH.KAILASH CHANDRA MANGAL,
R/O E-38 SHASHTRI NAGAR, AJMER RAJASTHAN 2. MANOJ MANGAL, S/O SH.KAILASH CHANDRA MANGAL, R/O E-38 SHASTRI NAGAR,
AJMER RAJASTHAN ...........Respondent(s) REVISION PETITION NO. 26 OF 2015 (Against the Order dated 14/10/2014 in Appeal No. 851/2013 of the State Commission Rajasthan) 1. SAHARA INDIA COMMERCIAL CORPORATION LTD. & 2 ORS. ...........Petitioner(s) Versus 1. SANJAY MANGAL & ANR. ...........Respondent(s)
BEFORE: HON'BLE DR. B.C. GUPTA,PRESIDING MEMBER HON'BLE MR. DR. S.M. KANTIKAR,MEMBER
For the Petitioner : For the Respondent :
Dated : 26 Apr 2017 ORDER
APPEARED AT THE TIME OF ARGUMENTS
For the Petitioners
:
Mr. Keshav Mohan, Advocate
Mr. Rishi K. Awasthi, Advocate
For the Respondent
:
Ex parte
PRONOUNCED ON : 26th APRIL 2017
O R D E R
PER DR. B.C. GUPTA, MEMBER These four revision petitions have been filed under section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the order dated 14.10.2014, passed by the Rajasthan State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (hereinafter referred to as 'the State Commission') in First Appeal Nos. 848/2013 to 851/2013, vide which, while dismissing the appeals, the orders dated 25.07.2013, passed by the District Forum Ajmer, in the consumer complaints, filed by the present respondents/complainants, allowing the said complaints, were upheld.
2. In the consumer complaints, it was stated by the complainants that their mother Smt. Pushplata Mangal during her life time, had opened accounts in Sahara IV Scheme and obtained various policies. At the time of opening the account, she was in good health, but later on it was diagnosed that she was suffering from breast cancer. The mother of the complainants died on 17.08.2006. The complainants filed the consumer complaints in question, seeking payment of various benefits under the accounts opened by her mother under the Sahara IV Scheme. In their reply to the complaints, the Petitioners/OPs stated that according to the terms and conditions mentioned in the agreement/contract between the parties, the issue involved in the dispute, i.e., the liability of death help was referred to an Arbitrator and the said Arbitrator had finally disposed of the dispute vide his Award on 07.09.2008. The proceedings of the consumer complaints were, therefore, barred on the principle of res judicata. The District Forum after considering the averments of the parties, passed their orders on 25.07.2013, allowing the complaints and directing them to pay the amounts under Sahara IV Scheme to the complainants. Being aggrieved against the said orders of the District Forum, the petitioners/OPs challenged the same by way of appeals before the State Commission and the said appeals having been dismissed vide order dated 14.10.2014, the petitioners/OPs are before this Commission by way of the present revision petitions.
3. The notice of the revision petitions was duly sent to the complainants/respondents in all the cases. However, they did not put in appearance despite service and hence were ordered proceeded against exparte.
4. The arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioners were heard and they also filed their written submissions.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioners has drawn attention to an order passed by this Commission in RP No. 827/2010, "M/s. Sahara India Financial Corporation Ltd. & ors. vs. Komal Chand Jain", decided on 29.09.2016, saying that the matters were no longer res integra in view of the order passed by this Commission in that case, in which it was held that if the award passed by the Arbitrator was not questioned by the complainants, they were not entitled to any amount as death help benefit under the Policy styled as Sahara-IV. The learned counsel stated that the Arbitrator had passed his Award before the orders passed by the District Forum. The learned counsel has also drawn attention to another order dated 22.07.2014 passed by this Commission in RP No. 2011/2014, in which the same parties were involved.
6. In his written submissions, the learned counsel stated that at the time of opening the account, the mother of the complainants had suppressed and concealed information from them that she was suffering from breast cancer. The benefit of death help was denied to the complainants due to the said concealment. The dispute had been referred by the petitioners to the Arbitrator in view of the arbitration clause in the agreement between the parties. The complainants had also participated in the arbitration proceedings and filed their objections before the Arbitrator. However, following the rejection of their objections, the complainants filed the consumer complaints before the District Forum, which were dismissed by them vide order dated 19.05.2010 on the ground that the arbitration award had already been passed. However, the said order of the District Forum was reversed in appeal before the State Commission, who vide their order dated 16.07.2012, remanded the case to the District Forum for taking a decision on merits. The District Forum then adjudicated the matter vide orders dated 25.07.2013 and directed the petitioners to pay the benefit of death help. The appeal filed against this order was dismissed by the State Commission on 31.01.2014. However, in the revision petition filed before this Commission, the said order was set aside vide order dated 22.07.2014 and the State Commission was asked to decide the matter afresh. Accordingly, the State Commission has passed the impugned order dated 14.10.2014, upholding the order dated 25.07.2013 of the District Forum.
7. The learned counsel argued that since the Award dated 07.09.2008 had neither been challenged anywhere, nor the same had been set aside by any competent court, the said Award had attained finality and hence, any different view could not be taken in proceedings before the Consumer Fora. The learned counsel has drawn attention to the judgments passed by this Commission in "Instalment Supply Ltd. vs Kangra Ex-service Man Transport Co. & Anr." [I (2007) CPJ 34 (NC)], and a judgment by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in "M/s. Centrotrade Minerals & Metal Inc. vs. Hindustan Copper Ltd." [2006 (11) SCC 245] in support of his arguments.
8. We have examined the entire material on record and given a thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced before us.
9. In "M/s. Sahara India Financial Corporation Ltd. & ors. Vs. Komal Chand Jain" [RP No. 827/2010 decided on 29.09.2016], the following order was passed by this Commission:-
"The short question arising for consideration in this Revision Petition filed by Sahara India Financial Corporation Ltd., the Opposite Party in the Complaint, is as to whether the Complainant, the Respondent herein, could invoke the jurisdiction of a Consumer Fora under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 after an award had been announced by the Sole Arbitrator on 05.11.2008, rejecting the same claim, which was made the subject matter of the Complaint under the Act.
Having heard learned Counsel for the Petitioners and the learned Amicus Curiae, we are of the view that since in the award the learned Arbitrator had come to the conclusion that the Complainant was not entitled to any amount as Death Help Benefit under the Policy, styled as Sahara-4, which award was not questioned by the Complainant, it could not be held that there was any deficiency in service on the part of the Petitioners in not accepting the claim of the Complainant. In that view of the matter, the impugned order, directing the Petitioners to examine the claim preferred by the Complainant on merits, cannot be sustained.
Consequently, the Revision Petition is allowed; the impugned order is set aside; and the Complaint filed by the Complainant is dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs."
10. In the cases in hand, the Arbitration Award dated 07.09.2008 was passed by the Arbitrator, according to which, the complaint of the present respondents was dismissed after considering the objections filed by them before the said Arbitrator.
11. There is nothing on record to say that the said Award was questioned by the complainants. Following the decision taken in "M/s. Sahara India Financial Corporation Ltd. & ors. Vs. Komal Chand Jain" [RP No. 827/2010 decided on 29.09.2016], these revision petitions are allowed and the impugned order passed by the Consumer Fora below are set aside. The complaints filed by the complainants are dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.
...................... DR. B.C. GUPTA PRESIDING MEMBER ...................... DR. S.M. KANTIKAR MEMBER