Back
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
C. Viswanath, Presiding Member and Subhash Chandra, Member
District Social Welfare
Officer and Anr. – Petitioners
versus
Krishna Devi and Anr. – Respondents
Revision Petition No.4515 of 2014
(Against the Order dated 21/03/2014 in Appeal No. 811/2013 of the State Commission NCDRC)
Decided on 23.11.2022
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Petitioners:Mr. Vishal Mahajan, Advocate with Mr. Anil Kumar, Advocate
For the Respondent No.1: Mr. Devender Kumar, Amicus Curiae
For the Respondent No.2:Mr. Navneet Kumar, Advocate along with Mr. Antarik Chakraborty, Advocate
IMPORTANT POINT
Government Schemes - It cannot be that all beneficiaries of governmental schemes are ‘consumers’ under the Act as there is some linkage either with the government or some organization under it or an insurance company that underwrites the scheme with budgetary support from the Consolidated Fund of India.
Headnote:
Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – S.21(b)[Consumer Protection Act, 2019 – S.58(1)(b)] -Revision against order of State Commission – Services – Government Schemes - Rajeev Gandhi Pariwar Beema Yojana (RGPBY) – Insurance Contract – Privity of Contract - deceased or his wife as a legal heir to the insurance company – Insurance Policy not in force - Whether the beneficiary of a government welfare scheme qualifies as a ‘consumer’ under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 in case it is funded through an arrangement of with an insurance policy - As on the date of the demise of the husband of respondent no.1, there was no insurance policy in force which bound the deceased or his wife as a legal heir to the insurance company/respondent no.2. In fact there was no such policy in force between the government and the insurance company/respondent no. 2. It cannot be that all beneficiaries of governmental schemes are ‘consumers’ under the Act as there is some linkage either with the government or some organization under it or an insurance company that underwrites the scheme with budgetary support from the Consolidated Fund of India - In view of the above, it is clear that respondent no.1/complainant does not qualify as a ‘consumer’ or ‘complainant’ as per the Act – On facts, The orders of the District Forum and the State Commission are, therefore, illegal and without jurisdiction and cannot sustain – Therefore, the appeal is not maintainable in view of there not being any privity of contract between the deceased or respondent no.1 as his legal heir with either respondent no.2 or with the petitioner no.1 – Therefore, the fora below have erred in entertaining the complaint and the appeal respectively, both of which are not maintainable. [Paras 5 to 9].
Result: Petition allowed.
ORDER
Subhash Chandra—This revision petition filed under section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short, the ‘Act’) assails the order of the State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission, Haryana, Panchkula (in short, ‘State Commission’) in First Appeal No. 811 of 2013 dated 21.03.2014 arising out of order dated 03.09.2013 in complaint no. 68 of 2012 of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Rewari (in short, ‘District Forum’).
2. The facts of the case lie in a narrow compass. The State Government of Haryana through its Department of Social Justice and Empowerment had, on 19.11.2009, notified a scheme called Rajeev Gandhi Pariwar Beema Yojana (RGPBY) based on an insurance contract with respondent no.2 for the period 28.03.2008 to 27.03.2009 to provide compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/- for persons in the age group 18 to 60 years in case of death or permanent disability. The scheme was notified in continuation of notification dated 29.04.2007 and was effective from 01.04.2006. The husband of respondent no.1, Late Shri Mohan, died by suicide on 12.07.2007. As her claim for compensation under the scheme was not approved, she filed a complaint before the District Forum seeking compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- from respondent no. 2 and petitioners 1 and 2 under the RGPBY. The District Forum in its order dated 03.09.2013 in CC 68 of 2012 allowed the complaint and directed payment of Rs.1,00,000/- with interest at 9% from the date of filing of the complaint within one month, failing which interest at 12% till realization. In appeal filed by respondent no. 2, the State Commission set aside the District Forum’s order on the ground that there was no insurance policy in existence at the time of the death of respondent no. 1’s husband thereby making the respondent no. 2/insurance company not liable. The State Commission held the State Government liable to pay the amount of Rs.1,00,000/- with interest at 9% from filing till date of payment. This order has been impugned before us by the State Government through the District Social Welfare Officer, Rewari.
3. The grounds of appeal are that the State Commission has erred in shifting the burden of payment on the State Government without adjudicating the maintainability of the proceedings before the Forum. It is contended that the respondent is not a ‘consumer’ under section 2(1) of the Act as there is no privity of contract. It is argued that merely because there was no insurance policy in place, liability could not be fastened upon petitioner no. 2. A welfare scheme of the State cannot make beneficiaries ‘consumers’ under the Act. As such the lower fora acted without jurisdiction without appreciating the provisions of the Act relating to ‘complaint’, ‘complainant’ and ‘consumer dispute’. Consequently, the impugned order is illegal and bad in law and liable to be set aside.
4. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties, perused the records and given thoughtful consideration to the facts of the case.
5. It is an admitted fact that the State Government introduced a policy for compensation in case of permanent disability or death of persons between the ages of 18 and 60 in the State. It is not disputed that the husband of respondent no. 1 died on 12.07.2007. It is also not in dispute that the scheme of the government was linked to an insurance arrangement with respondent no. 2 for which the premium had been paid by the State. While both lower fora have held that respondent no. 1 be provided compensation, the issue before us whether the beneficiary of a government welfare scheme qualifies as a ‘consumer’ under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 in case it is funded through an arrangement of with an insurance policy.
6. It is relevant to consider the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 at this stage. The aims and objectives of the Act are:—
Statement of Objects and Reasons
The Consumer Protection Bill, 1986 seeks to provide for better protection of the interests
