State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
The Postal & R.M.S. Employees ... vs Nirmala Verma And Others on 1 November, 2013
H.P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
SHIMLA.
First Appeal No.176/2013
Date of Presentation: 11.07.2013
Date of Decision: 01.11.2013
..................................................................................
The Postal & R.M.S. Employees Co-operative Bank Limited,
Idgah Road, Ambala Cantt.,
Through its Chairman,
Super Bazar Building,
Ambala Cantt.-133 001.
.......... Appellant
Versus
(1) Nirmala Verma, wife of late Shri Jagdish Verma,
Resident of Village Fatnechi, Post Office Biachari,
Via Totu, Shimla-171 011.
.......... Respondent
(2) Chief Postmaster General, Ambala (Haryana).
(3) The General Post Office,
Through its Postmaster General,
The Mall, Shimla-171 001, H.P.
.......... Proforma Respondents
.........................................................................................
Coram
Hon'ble Mr. Justice (Retd.) Surjit Singh, President
Hon'ble Mr. Chander Shekhar Sharma, Member
Hon'ble Mrs. Prem Chauhan, Member
Whether approved for reporting?1
For Appellant: Mr. Manohar Lal Sharma, Advocate
For Respondent No.1: Mr. Himanshoo Panwar, Advocate
For Proforma Respondent No.2: Ex-parte
For Proforma Respondent No.3: Mr. Sudhir Thakur, Advocate vice
Mr. Vijay Arora, Advocate
..........................................................................................
1
Whether Reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the order?
{(Postal & R.M.S. Employees COOP. Bank Ltd. Vs. Nirmala Verma & Ors.)
(F.A. No.176/2013)}
_____________________________________________________________
O R D E R:
Justice (Retd.) Surjit Singh, President (Oral) Appellant is aggrieved by the order dated 30th April, 2013, of learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Shimla, whereby a complaint, under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, filed against it and proforma respondents No.2 & 3, by respondent No.1, Nirmala Verma, has been allowed and a direction issued to it (the appellant), to pay a sum of `50,000/- with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum, on account of Employees' Welfare Fund Scheme and also to pay `25,000/- as compensation and `5,000/-, on account of litigation expenses.
2. Late Shri Jagdish Verma, husband of respondent No.1 was a member/employee of the appellant, Postal & R.M.S. Employees Co-operative Bank Limited. Appellant had a scheme, in terms of which, its employees were required to contribute `100/- every month, on account of compulsory thrift subscription. As per this scheme, in the event of a member of the scheme dying, while in service, a sum of `50,000/- was to be paid to his nominee. Shri Page 2 of 8 {(Postal & R.M.S. Employees COOP. Bank Ltd. Vs. Nirmala Verma & Ors.) (F.A. No.176/2013)} _____________________________________________________________ Jagdish Verma, husband of respondent No.1, died on 17.12.2003.
3. Appellant was approached by respondent No.1, to pay the money due under the aforesaid scheme. She was required to submit a form, duly filled in and verified. She submitted the form, Annexure C-1. Appellant, however, paid only a sum of `6,410/-, instead of `50,000/-, by means of a cheque and stated that rest of the money had been adjusted against a loan raised by deceased Jagdish Verma, which had remained unpaid.
4. Respondent No.1 felt aggrieved and filed a complaint, under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. In the complaint, she pleaded that loan raised by her husband had been paid by him in the month of March, 2003, during his lifetime and the appellant had acknowledged the receipt of the entire amount of loan.
5. Complaint was contested by the appellant. It was stated that deceased was not a consumer, but he was one of the members/directors of the bank and as such he could not claim the status of a consumer. On merits, it was stated that the deceased, during his Page 3 of 8 {(Postal & R.M.S. Employees COOP. Bank Ltd. Vs. Nirmala Verma & Ors.) (F.A. No.176/2013)} _____________________________________________________________ lifetime, had ceased to be a member of the Employees' Welfare Fund Scheme as he got the value of his shares to the tune of `5,000/- adjusted against the loan, which he had raised from the appellant- bank.
6. Learned District Forum, vide impugned order, has allowed the complaint and directed the appellant to pay `50,000/-, on account of money under the Employees' Welfare Fund Scheme. Learned District Forum has concluded that when loan had been liquidated by the husband of respondent No.1, during his lifetime, there could not have been any question of adjustment of loan amount against the amount of `50,000/-, payable under the Employees' Welfare Fund Scheme.
7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record.
8. It is submitted on behalf of the appellant that deceased was not a 'consumer', because he was one of the share holders and in that capacity, a director of the bank. There is nothing on record, showing that deceased was a director of the bank. Of course, he was one of the share holders, but at the Page 4 of 8 {(Postal & R.M.S. Employees COOP. Bank Ltd. Vs. Nirmala Verma & Ors.) (F.A. No.176/2013)} _____________________________________________________________ same time, he was a contributory to the Employees' Welfare Fund, under the scheme of the bank which provided that in the event of a member dying a sum of `50,000/- would be payable to his nominee. This fact is not denied by the appellant and is rather admitted when it states in its reply that deceased had ceased to be a member of the Employees' Welfare Fund Scheme, during his lifetime. So, the plea that the deceased was not a 'consumer', cannot be accepted.
9. On the death of Shri Jagdish Verma, respondent No.1 approached the appellant for payment of `50,000/- under the Employees' Welfare Fund Scheme. She was sent a form, Annexure C-1 by the appellant with a direction to fill in the same, get the same verified and then to submit it to the appellant-bank. She submitted the form and upon this form itself, a note was recorded by some functionary of the appellant that account had been closed on 23.12.2003 and against the amount of `50,000/-, loan money due from the deceased had been adjusted and the remaining amount of `6,410/- sent by cheque No.958857 on 23.12.2003. This Page 5 of 8 {(Postal & R.M.S. Employees COOP. Bank Ltd. Vs. Nirmala Verma & Ors.) (F.A. No.176/2013)} _____________________________________________________________ noting on Annexure C-1 by a functionary of the appellant gives a complete lie to its plea that deceased had ceased to be a member of the fund, during his lifetime. This apart, no documentary evidence has been adduced to support the plea that deceased had ceased to be a member of the Employees Welfare Fund Scheme.
10. Noting recorded by the functionary of the appellant-bank on Annexure C-1 amounts to admission that a sum of `50,000/- was due to respondent No.1, being the nominee of the deceased, on account of Employees' Welfare Fund Scheme. Out of this amount, only a sum of `6,410/- has been paid to respondent No.1. Rest of the money is stated to have been adjusted against the loan.
11. Respondent No.1/Complainant very categorically stated in para-7 of the complaint that deceased had taken a loan of `50,000/- from the appellant-bank, which he had liquidated on 26.03.2003 and the appellant had acknowledged the receipt of repayment of loan amount and its complete liquidation. Appellant has admitted this fact in its reply.
Page 6 of 8 {(Postal & R.M.S. Employees COOP. Bank Ltd. Vs. Nirmala Verma & Ors.) (F.A. No.176/2013)} _____________________________________________________________
12. Not only this, appellant also stated that it (the appellant) had got adjusted the loan against the money, payable under the Employees' Welfare Fund Scheme. How could there has been any adjustment of loan against the money, payable under the Employees' Welfare Fund Scheme, when the said money is to become payable only in the event of death of a member. In any case, as already noticed, hereinabove, appellant admitted that loan liability had been liquidated by the deceased, during his lifetime, while admitting the contents of para-7 of the complaint in its reply.
13. However, we find that learned District Forum has fallen in error in directing payment of `50,000/-, on account of money due under the Employees' Welfare Fund Scheme. A sum of `6,410/- already stood paid to respondent No.1, as is made out from Annexure C-1. Therefore, she is entitled to a sum of `43,590/- only. Also, we feel that the amount of `25,000/- ordered to be paid, on account of compensation is exceedingly disproportionate to the liability, which has been fastened upon the appellant. Respondent No.1 has been awarded the money due to Page 7 of 8 {(Postal & R.M.S. Employees COOP. Bank Ltd. Vs. Nirmala Verma & Ors.) (F.A. No.176/2013)} _____________________________________________________________ her under the Employees' Welfare Fund Scheme with interest. Therefore, in our considered view, a sum of `10,000/- should be reasonable compensation.
14. As a result of the above stated position, appeal is partly allowed to the extent that the appellant shall pay a sum of `43,590/- instead of `50,000/- with interest as awarded by the learned District Forum, on account of Employees' Welfare Fund Scheme and a sum of `10,000/- instead of `25,000/- as compensation. Direction regarding payment of costs given by the learned District Forum remains unchanged. Appeal stands disposed of accordingly.
15. A copy of this order be sent to each of the parties, free of cost, as per Rules.
(Justice Surjit Singh) President (Chander Shekhar Sharma) Member (Prem Chauhan) Member November 01, 2013 *dinesh* Page 8 of 8