State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Maharashtra State Electricity Workers ... vs Sharda Ajaysingh Rajput on 9 December, 2022
1 FA/265/2018
Date of filing :18.07.2018
Date of order :09.12.2022
MAHARASHTRA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTE
REDRESSAL COMMISSION,MUMBAI, BENCH AT
AURANGABAD.
FIRST APPEAL NO. : 265 OF 2018
IN COMPLAINT CASE NO.: 497 OF 2017
DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM : AURANGABAD.
Maharashtra State Electricity Workers Federation
Co- operative Credit Society Ltd,. Aurangabad.
Through its Secretary,
Baburao s/o Balaji Suradkar,
Office at Vij Kamgar Bhavan, Kotwalpure,
Aurangabad. APPELLANT
VERSUS
Smt. Sharda Ajaysingh Rajput,
House No. 5.3.2013, Navkhanda, Jublee park,
Aurangabad. RESPONDENT
CORAM :Smt.S.T.Barne, Hon'ble Judicial Member.
Mr.K.M.Lawande, Hon'ble Member.
Present : Adv.Abhay Taksal for appellant,
Adv.S.T.Agrawal for respondent.
JUDGMENT
(Delivered on 09/12/2022) Per K.M.Lawande, Hon'ble P Member.
1. Being aggrieved by the judgment and order of District Consumer Forum, Aurangabad in C.C.No.497/2017, dated 16.05.2018, the appellant has filed appeal.
2 FA/265/2018
2. Appellant is the ori. Opponent and respondent is the ori. Complainant in C.C. 497/2017, they are hereinafter referred to as opponent and complainant as per their status in the consumer complaint and the District Consumer Disputed Redressal Forum is referred to as District Forum for the sake of convenience.
3. The complainant Smt.Sharda Rajput has filed consumer complaint no.497/2017 before District Consumer Forum, Aurangabad under Sec.12 of Consumer Protection Act,1986. It is contended by the complainant that, her husband Ajaysingh Rajput served Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Co.Ltd, for 32 to 35 years and he died on 18.4.2013. The deceased was the member of opponent Credit society since its establishment. The complainant being legal heirs of the deceased is the consumer of opponent Credit Society. After death of her husband she approached the opponent Credit Society to get Rs. 45,000/- towards financial aid out of welfare fund, Rs. 5,000/- towards non refundable financial aid and Rs. 2 Lakh towards insurance under the group policy. The complainant submitted the extract of annual report of the year 2012-2013 and 2013-2014 contending that they are showing the financial benefits and insurance being given to the members of the society. It is alleged that the opponent Credit Society did not pay the amount if insurance Rs. 2 Lakh to the complainant. The complainant has filed the consumer complaint directing opponent Credit society to pay Rs. 2 Lakh towards insurance 3 FA/265/2018 and issue no dues certificate, Rs. 50,000/- towards compensation and Rs. 2,000/- towards cost of litigation.
4. The opponent Credit Society appeared before the District Consumer Forum and filed its reply and denied the rival allegations. It is contended that, the opponent Credit Society has purchased the group insurance policy for its members from 1.6.2013. The deceased died on 18.4.2013 and his name is not included in the list for group insurance policy. Therefore, complainant is not entitled to get benefit of the group insurance policy. The opponent Credit Society also submitted some particulars regarding standing loan due for recovery against the deceased and which is communicated to the Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Co.Ltd, office. It is contented that after death of deceased Ajaysingh, complainant obtained the amount from Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Co.Ltd, with pressure and not paid the due amount to the credit society. It is contended that the opponent Credit Society is ready to pay the financial aid of Rs. 45,000/- and Rs.5,000/- towards subsistence allowance to the complainant. However, the complainant has not submitted documents to avail this benefit. The opponent prayed to dismiss the complaint.
5. The District Consumer Forum vide impugned order dated 16.5.2018 has allowed the complaint and directed the opponent Credit Society to deposit Rs. 2 Lakh in the loan account of the deceased and not to levy interest from 18.4.2013. The District Consumer Forum also directed to 4 FA/265/2018 give benefit of financial aid of Rs. 45,000/- and subsistence allowances of Rs. 5,000/- to the complainant within 30 days after receipt of proposal by the complainant within 30 days of the order.
6. Being aggrieved by the order the opponent has filed this appeal on the following grounds.
That, the District Consumer Forum decided the complaint arbitrarily and erroneously. The District Consumer Forum failed to consider that, the opponent is not the insurance company. The District Consumer Forum in the absence of the documents arrived to conclusion in deciding the complaint. The District Consumer Forum did not appreciate that LIC was necessary party to the litigation. The District Consumer Forum failed to consider that, prior to purchase of the policy the deceased was died. Therefore, deceased or legal heir of the deceased is not entitled to get benefit of group insurance policy. The District Consumer Forum also failed to consider that, the deceased had obtained loan from the opponent Credit Society and the complainant has mischievously withdrawn the amount of gratuity from the Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Co.Ltd, and not paid due amount. The opponent is willing to pay the benefit of financial support of Rs. 45,000/- and Rs. 5,000/- towards subsistence allowance.
7. Adv. Taksal appeared for the appellant, Adv. S.T.Agrawal appeared for respondent. After submission of both the parties 5 FA/265/2018 following points arise for our determination. We have noted them along with our findings for the reasons to follow.
Sr.No. Points. Answers.
1 Whether, the complainant has established No.
deficiency in service to opponent ?
2 Whether, there requires interference Yes.
In the judgment and order of
District Consumer Forum?
3 What order? As per final order.
REASONING
Point Nos. 1&2 :-
8. Adv. Taksal for opponent remained absent for oral argments. However, he has already filed written notes of argument in the line of grounds of appeal.
9. Adv.S.T.Agrawal argued for opponent in the line of complaint that, the husband of complainant was member of opponent Credit Society. The opponent Credit Society had scheme of group insurance policy for protection of their members. The opponent's Society has reported that, they have purchased group insurance policy for their members in the annual reports of 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14, which are filed by the complainant on record to show that the opponent Credit Society had obtained group insurance policy for their members. The legal heir of deceased the complainant is entitled for the benefit of group insurance policy of Rs.2 Lakhs. However, the opponent Credit Society has not paid that amount.
6 FA/265/2018 Discussion :-
10. Admittedly, the deceased died on 18.4.2013. The opponent in w.s. submitted that, they purchased insurance policy for their members on 01.06.2013 and the policy period was 01.06.2013 to 31.05.2014. There is one letter by Br. Officer, Insurance Department LIC Aurangabad dated 05.07.2018 addressed to Chairman State Electricity Workers, Aurangabad mentioning that, the group insurance policy under number 67975 is incepted on 01.06.2013 and effective to 31.05.2014. The said letter is at page no.57 of appeal compilation. The said letter is mentioning that, the deceased died before the inception of the policy and therefore, complainant is not entitled to get benefit of the policy. The complainant is under liability to establish her case. The insurance policy has not been brought on record by complainant. The opponent is submitting that, the insurance policy is incepted from 01.06.2013 and it is up to 31.05.2014.
The letter of LIC is also supporting the contention of opponent. Therefore, in our opinion benefit of insurance cannot be extended to legal heir of deceased as there was no policy in existence. The complainant is relying on the annual report published by the society. The annual report of 2013-14 is at page no. 32 of appeal compilation. It is mentioned therein that, Society has obtained the group insurance policy through LIC. Though the said report is for the year 2013-14 i.e. for the period of 01.04.2013 to 31.03.2014, perusing this report. Complainant is claiming that she is entitled to get benefit of insurance scheme. However, going through w.s. and letter of 7 FA/265/2018 LIC, it makes clear that the opponent Credit Society purchased the insurance for its members from 01.06.2013 on wards. Therefore, it can be inferred that, there was no insurance policy on 18.04.2013 i.e. on death of deceased. Therefore, question does not arise that, the complainant is entitled for the benefit of Rs. 2.0 Lakh towards group insurance policy.
11) The District Consumer Forum allowed the complaint. After perusal of judgment of District Consumer Forum, it reveals that, the District Consumer Forum allowed the complaint relying upon the annual reports of opponent society and observed that, the opponent Credit Society had purchased group insurance for the year 2012-13 & 2013-14. It reveals that, the District Consumer Forum further observed that, the opponent failed to adduce the evidence that, they purchased policy on 01.06.2013. It reveals that, the District Consumer Forum failed to appreciate that, the opponent Credit Society has taken defence that, though the benefit of group insurance is mentioned in the annual report for 2013-14, the policy is purchased on 01.06.2013. Therefore the deceased is not covering under group policy or entitled for benefit under the policy as he died on 18.04.2018, when there was no policy in existence. Therefore District Commission has committed error by keeping reliance on annual report published by opponent for grant of claim under policy. Therefore, there requires interference in the impugned judgment and order of District Consumer Forum to that extent. The District Consumer Forum directed to pay Rs. 45,000/- and Rs.5,000/- towards 8 FA/265/2018 financial aid and subsistence allowance by opponent as per opponents policy (धोरण) as mentioned in annual reports. We agree with the directions of District Consumer Forum to give the benefit of Rs. 45,000/- and Rs.5,000/- towards financial aid and subsistence allowance by opponent as per opponents policy as mentioned in annual reports. It reveals that, opponent is also not denying the same. In the circumstances, we pass following order.
ORDER
1. Appeal is partly allowed.
2. The order in complaint No. 497/2017 is modified and clause no.1 of the operative order is quashed and set aside.
3. Remaining part of the operative order is maintained as it is.
4. No order as to costs in appeal.
Sd/- Sd/- Mr.K.M.Lawande Smt.S.T.Barne, Member Presiding Judicial Member UNK