RAJASTHAN STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION, JAIPUR
Hon’ble Mr. Justice S.K.M. Lodha, President;
Mr. Damodar Thanvi and Mrs. Saria Khan, Members.
JANPRIYA FINANCE & INDUSTRIAL INVESTMENT
(INDIA) LTD., UDAIPUR—Appellant
versus
ANOOP LAL BANSAL, UDAIPUR—Respondent
Appeal No. 12 of 1989—Decided on 2.6.1989
A complainant is not entitled to a refund of instalments paid for a lapsed Welfare Endowment Certificate under the Social Welfare Scheme if the complainant fails to revive the lapsed certificate before its maturity in accordance with the scheme.
Headnote:
CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986 - SECTION 5 - WELFARE ENDOWMENT CERTIFICATE - REVIVAL OF LAPSED CERTIFICATE - REFUND OF INSTALMENTS - INTERPRETATION OF CLAUSES 5 AND 8 OF THE SOCIAL WELFARE SCHEME - COURT HELD THAT THE COMPLAINANT WAS NOT ENTITLED TO A REFUND OF THE INSTALMENTS PAID AS HE FAILED TO REVIVE THE LAPSED CERTIFICATE BEFORE ITS MATURITY IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE SCHEME.
Fact of the Case:
The complainant purchased a Welfare Endowment Certificate under the Social Welfare Scheme from the opposite party-appellant and deposited 28 instalments of Rs. 52/- per month. However, he failed to deposit the remaining instalments and the certificate lapsed. The complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum seeking a refund of the instalments paid along with interest and compensation.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the complainant was not entitled to a refund of the instalments paid as he failed to revive the lapsed certificate before its maturity in accordance with Clause 5 of the Social Welfare Scheme. The court also held that the District Forum erred in invoking Clause 8 of the Scheme, which deals with Paid-up Certificates, as the conditions laid therein were not fulfilled.
Issues: Whether the complainant was entitled to a refund of the instalments paid for the lapsed Welfare Endowment Certificate.
Ratio Decidendi: The court interpreted Clauses 5 and 8 of the Social Welfare Scheme and held that the complainant was required to revive the lapsed certificate before its maturity in accordance with Clause 5(a) in order to be entitled to a refund of the instalments paid. The court also held that the District Forum erred in invoking Clause 8(b) as the complainant did not apply for the revival of the lapsed Certificate before its maturity.
Final Decision: The court allowed the appeal and set aside the order of the District Forum, dismissing the complaint filed by the complainant-respondent.
Mr. Justice S.K.M. Lodha, President —This is an appeal under S. 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (No. 68 of 1986) (“the Act” herein) against the order dated 28.3.1989 passed by the District Forum, Udaipur by which it directed that the opposite party-appellant should refund Rs. 1,456/- deposited by complainant-respondent along with interest @ 12% p.a. from 21.3.1988 until realization. It was ordered that the opposite party- appellant should make payment within one month. A sum of Rs. 250/- was also ordered to be paid by the opposite party-appellant to the complainant-respondent as compensation and costs of the complaint.
2. The complainant-respondent filed a complaint before the District Forum, Udaipur praying amongst others that he had purchased one Life Insurance Certificate from the opposite party-appellant bearing No. 105/001 for which he was required to deposit Rs. 52/- per month for 60 months. The complainant-respondent, however, deposited 28 instalments only by depositing Rs. 52/- every month. He, however, failed to deposit the remaining instalments in time. The complaint failed to deposit 12 instalments month by month. After 12 instalments became due, he went there to deposit. The opposite party- appellant refused to deposit the amount told him that if head office permits, then amount will be deposited. However, the Head Office refused to accept the amount. He was told that 28 instalments of Rs. 52/- each (total Rs. 1,456/-) deposited by him also cannot be refunded. It prayed that if the remaining instalments are not accepted, then amount of Rs. 1,456/- should be ordered to be refunded with interest and bonus. This complaint was presented on Nov. 3,1988. It was ordered to be registered and the next date fixed was 17.11.1988.
3. The opposite party-appellant filed its version of the case contesting the complaint. In support of that an affidavit was also filed. The complainant filed a rejoinder dated 12.12.1988 reiterating the averments made in the complaint. It was submitted by the opposite-party that the complainant had purchased the Welfare Endowment Certificate under the Social Welfare Scheme and not the Life Insurance Certificate. The welfare Endowment Certificate lapsed and it was not revived under CI. 5 of the Social Welfare Scheme. The complainant is not entitled to the refund of Rs. 1,456/-. No evidence was produced by the parties except their own affidavits. The District Forum heard the arguments and came to the conclusion that the complainant is entitled to Rs. 1,456/- with interest at 12% p.a. from 21.3.1988 until realization and Rs. 251/- as compensation and costs. Hence this appeal.
4. Notice of the appeal was sent to the complainant-respondent. The complainant- respondent refused to accept the notice. The service was taken as sufficient.
5. We have heard Mr. Virendra Lodha, in support of the appeal. It was contended by Mr. Virendra Lodha that the District Forum had made a wrong approach to the case while passing the order under appeal. He submitted that the complainant-respondent had purchased a Welfare Endowment Certificate under the social Welfare Scheme and as the complainant failed to deposit instalments of Rs. 52/- every month after he had deposited 28 instalments, the Certificate stood lapsed and as the complainant-respondent did not get it revived any time before the date of maturity, in accordance with Clause 5 of the Social Welfare Scheme, the amount of 28 instalments paid by the complainant-respondent cannot be refunded. Clause 5 deals with revival of discontinued/lapsed certificate. Clause 5(a) is as follows:—
“(a) Ordinary Revival:
When the instalment is not within the days of grave, the certificate stands lapsed, but may be revived any time before the date of maturity on payment of arrear dues together with interest @ 1 paisa per rupee per month to be compounded every six months, subject to a minimum sum of 50 paise, or it may be transferred to another person as per Clause 13 below”.
Clause