Back
ORISSA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CUTTACK
Dr. D.P. Choudhury J., President, Dr. P.K. Prusty, Member and S.L. Pattnaik, Member
Sahara India, represented by its
Sector Manager and Ors. – Appellants
versus
Sandhyarani Choudhury and Ors. – Respondents
First Appeal Nos.232 and 241 of 2017
Decide on 3.4.2023
Counsel for the Parties:
In First Appeal No.232/2017
For the Appellants:Mr. M.P. Singh, Advocate
For the Respondents:Mr. N.K. Sahoo, Advocate
In First Appeal No.241/2017
For the Appellants:Mr. N.K. Sahoo, Advocate
For the Respondents:Mr. M.P. Singh, Advocate, M/s. B.N. Udgata & Associates
IMPORTANT POINT
Special circumstance - When the complainants being widow and small children of the deceased investor/policy holder have run from pillar to post, there is harassment and mental agony for which they are entitled to the necessary compensation in this regard under special circumstance.
Headnote:
Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – S.17[Consumer Protection Act, 2019 – S.47(1)] – Services – Real Estate – Allotment of Flat / Plot – Delayed Possession - parties being privity of contract – Bound by Agreement – Cannot run away – entitlement to compensation - It is well settled in law that the complainant has to prove its case including the deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party nos.1 to 3 – Where policy holder is not a party to their agreement to the extent of accident benefit the dispute between opposite party nos. 1 to 3 and opposite party no.4 cannot affect the policy holder, as the terms and conditions executed between the policy holder S and opposite party no.3, is binding on them and nominee of the policy holder. It is well settled in law that the parties being privity of contract are bound by the contract and cannot go away from the respective liability and responsibility - When the complainants being widow and small children of the deceased investor/policy holder have run from pillar to post, there is harassment and mental agony for which they are entitled to the necessary compensation in this regard under special circumstances. It must be remembered that constitutional provisions have made under Article 15 of the Constitution to have a special legislation to the women and children. Particularly in this case, the husband dies, necessary liability and all kinds of responsibility lie on the women-complainant to cater to the need of the children. Therefore, considering the plight of the complainants, mental harassment and mental agony meted out to them are hereby considered to allow compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- payable by opposite parties no. 1 to 3 to the complainants – Also, there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties no. 1 to 3 for not paying the entire insurance compensation amount as per the terms under Clause (18) of the policy and accordingly compensation is modified – Appeal allowed/dismissed. [Paras 14 to 20].
Result: Appeal allowed /dismissed.
ORDER
Dr. D.P. Choudhury J., President—Both the appeals arise out of common order dated 22.032017 passed by the District Forum, Cuttack in C.C. No. 122 of 2011. First Appeal No. 232 of 2017 is filed by the opposite parties whereas First Appeal No. 241 of 2017 is filed by the legal heirs of the complainant.
2. These appeals are filed u/s 15 of the erstwhile Consumer Protection Act, 1986
(hereinafter called the ‘Act’). Parties to this appeal shall be referred to with reference to their respective status before the District Forum.
Pleadings
3. The unfolded story of the complainants is that they are the legal heirs of late Sunil Kumar Choudhury, who had invested in two accounts where the opposite parties have floated the scheme “Sahara Rajat Yojana” under the brand name ‘SAHARA’ by paying Rs.10,000/- each on 28.8.2004 and 25.9.2004 for the two accounts bearing no. 13529206695 and 13529206939 as per the ‘Sahara Rajat Yojana’ under category ‘C’, a person who has deposited in advance of Rs.10,000/- in lump sum so as to get the benefit of credit value against the allotment of immovable property (housing unit/commercial unit) and/or product/services. However, in the instant case Sunil Kumar Choudhury died on 18.5.2008 leaving behind the complainants as legal heirs. As per the scheme, after three years and before completion of four years, if death of the investor occurs then, compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- under option ‘A’ and ‘B’ and Rs.1,50,000/- under option ‘C’ are made available. In the case in hand, since Sunil Kumar Choudhury died after three years of commencement of the investment before four years completed, he is entitled to Rs.1,50,000/- as insurance compensation under option ‘C’. The legal heirs made the insurance claim, but it was not made available except payment of Rs.75,000/- by the opposite party no. 1 and 2. The prayer was not considered for which the complaint petition was filed.
4. Opposite party nos. 1, 2 and 3 filed written version stating that they have got group contingency policy covering under the said contingency policy with National Insurance Company and the investors and the deceased are coming under that scheme. Therefore, rest of the amount as claimed by the complainant is to be borne by the National Insurance Company. Since Sunil Kumar Choudhury is a beneficiary under the scheme, the National Insurance Company who was later added as party should pay the same and opposite party nos. 1 and 2 are not entitled to pay the same.
5. After hearing the parties, learned District Forum passed the following order:-
xxxxx xxxxx
“O.Ps 1 to 3 (Sahara India) will pay a sum of Rs.75,000/- to the complainant along with interest @12% per annum from filing of this suit by the complainant i.e. 24.5.2011 till the date of final payment. O.Ps. (1 to 3) will also pay sum of Rs.10,000/- towards cost of litigation to the complainant. Such payment shall be made to the complainant within 45 days from the date of receipt of this order by Sahara India, failing which the complainant is at liberty to take shelter of this Hon’ble Forum again as per C.P. Act, 1986.”
6. Learned counsel for the opposite party nos. 1,2 and 3/appellant in F.A. No. 232 of 2017 submitted that they have already paid Rs.75,000/-. They further submitted that the impugned order are not legal because the same is passed without considering the written version into consideration. According to them, the complainant has already received Rs.75,000/- as per the scheme from opposite party nos. 1 to 3 and they are not ready to receive any further amount. According to him, the complainant Sunil Kumar Choudhury who has invested the money is entitled to Rs.75,000/- which is already paid by the National Insurance Company through the opposite party nos. 1 to 3, but are not entitled rest amount of Rs. 1,50,000/- under category ‘C’ of the scheme. For the same reason, that po
