NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
V.K. Jain, Presiding Member
Manager, Sahara India Pariwar —Petitioners
Versus
Surendra Kumar —Respondent
Revision petition no. 4043 of 2014
(Against the Order dated 04/08/2014 in Appeal No. 305/2007 of the State Commission Bihar) Decided on 21.7.2020

IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Non-payment of death assistance provides a recurrent cause of action.
(2) There is no justification to ask complainant for surety when scheme itself requires to furnish only her personal bond.

Headnote:

(A) Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Section 24-A [Consumer Protection Act, 2019 – Section 69] – Complaint – Limitation – Denial of death assistance payable under scheme – Cause of action to file consumer complaint continued to accrue in favour of complainant even till date on which consumer complaint was actually instituted – Had claim for grant of death assistance been rejected period of limitation would have commenced from that date but death assistance having never been refused complainant had a recurrent cause of action – Complaint cannot be said to be barred by limitation.

Held: The preliminary submission of the Ld. counsel for the petitioner is that the complaint when instituted was barred by limitation which commenced on the death of the bond holder. The complaint, according to him, ought to have been instituted within two years of her death. I, however, find absolutely no merit in the contention. Though the amount of the bond was paid to the complainant the claim for grant of this assistance was never rejected. The cause of action to file the consumer complaint therefore continued to accrue in favour of the complainant even till the date on which the consumer complaint was actually instituted. Had the claim for grant of the death assistance been rejected the period of limitation would have commenced from that date but the death assistance having never been refused the complainant had a recurrent cause of action to approach the District Forum by way of a consumer complaint. In fact even the date on which the amount of the bond was disbursed to the complainant is not available with the Ld. counsel for the petitioner. Therefore, the complaint, in my view, cannot be said to be barred by limitation. (Para 5)

(B) Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Section 21 [Consumer Protection Act, 2019 – Section 51] – Financial services – Denial of death assistance payable under scheme – District Forum directed to pay face value of bond i.e. 1,000/- per month from death in a lump sum for accumulated period and further to pay monthly of Rs. 1,000/- for total period of 10 years to complainant, also pay Rs. 2,000/- by way of compensation for harassment and cost of litigation – Though amount of bond was paid to complainant claim for grant of this assistance was never rejected – In a consumer matter of this nature where amount involved is very small and complainant is nominee of a very small investor it will not be appropriate to interfere with concurrent order passed by Fora below in exercise of revisional jurisdiction of this Commission when matter was contested not only on preliminary issue but also on merits – Ultimately, amount payable to complainant in terms of order passed by Fora below may come from coffers of concerned company which contested consumer complaint through petitioner organization – Petitioner failed to show that complainant was not entitled to death assistance in terms of clause contained in scheme in which deposit was made by deceased – Though, said amount was returnable to company, it was not to carry and interest and was to be disbursed on strength of personal bond of nominee of depositor – This is nobody’s case that complainant was not willing to execute personal bond – Petitioner-company never offered death assistance to complainant – Complainant has rightly been held entitled to death assistance – There is no justification to ask complainant for surety when scheme itself requires to furnish only her personal bond – Asking for surety would be contrary to terms of scheme and possibly result in frustrating grant of assistance – Orders of Fora below does not call for

any interference – Revision Petition dismissed.

Held: The Petitioner failed to show that the complainant was not entitled to the death assistance in terms of the clause contained in the scheme in which the deposit was made by the deceased. Though, the said amount was returnable to the company, it was not to carry and interest and was to be disbursed on the strength of the personal bond of the nominee of the depositor. This is nobody’s case that the complainant was not willing to execute the personal bond. In fact, the petitioner or for that matter the company namely Sahara Commercial Corporation Limited never offered the death assistance to the complainant. The complainant, therefore, has rightly been held entitled to the said death assistance.

In my opinion, in this matter there is no justification to ask the complainant, for the surety when the scheme itself requires to furnish only her personal bond. Asking for the surety would be contrary to the terms of the scheme and possibly result in frustrating the grant of the assistance since being a poor person the complainant may not be in a position to furnish the surety to the satisfaction of the petitioner. In Pawan Kumar Jain (supra), the relevant scheme itself provided for personal surety of the nominee, but in this matter only personal bond is required.

For the reasons stated hereinabove, the order of the Fora below does not call for any interference of this commission in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction. Any interference by this Commission on the technical grounds advanced by the Ld. counsel for the petitioner will result in the failure of justice instead of advancing the same. The revision petition is, therefore, dismissed with no order as to cost. (Paras 5, 8, 10 and 11)

Result: Revision Petition dismissed.