STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, ODISHA, CUTTACK FIRST APPEAL NO. 59 of 2011 (From an order dated 29.12.2010 passed by the District Forum, Cuttack in Consumer Complaint No.105/2008)

Sahara India Financial Corporation Ltd., represented by its Sector Manager, Sector Office, Professorpara, P.o.- Buxi Bazar Cuttack.

...

Appellant.

-Vrs-

Niranjan Goenka, Aged about 58 years, S/o Subhan Karan Goenka, Near Canal Road, Jobra, College Square, At/Po/Dist. Cuttack.

...

Respondent.

Counsel for the Appellant- Sri M.P.Singh.

Counsel For the Respondent- Sri Sumit Lal, Sri Sujit Lal, Sri Mohit Agrawal.

PRESENT :-

Sri D.K. Mohapatra, Member.

Miss S.L.Pattnaik, Member.

DATE OF HEARING-30.09.2022 DATE OF ORDER- 30.09.2022

O R D E R

This appeal has been filed challenging the impugned order dated

29.12.2010 passed by learned the District Forum, Cuttack in C.C. No.105 of 2008.

The appellant has approached this Commission for second time in F.A.59/2011 challenging the order dated 29.12.2010.

Earlier the appellant had approached this Commission in F.A. No.

1010/2009, challenging the ex-parte order dt. 06-10-2009 passed in C.C. 105 of 2008, after hearing the appeal this Commission vide order dt. 18-08-2010 was pleased to set aside the ex-parte judgment and remitted back the matter to learned District Forum, Cuttack for fresh disposal, with a direction to afford time to the opposite parties(Sahara India Financial Corporation Ltd.) to file their written version and thereafter to hear the matter and pass order in accordance with law.

In pursuance to order dt. 18-08-2010 of this Commission the opposite parties filed written version before the District Forum on 31-08-2010.

Heard learned counsel for both the parties.

The case of the Complainant is that on 01.08.2003 one Smt. Anadi Goenka wife of the Complainant availed a policy namely SAHARA, 4-DS, She was assigned an Account No.11809891041, wherein her husband(present respondent) was the nominee. At the time of application insured was aged about 50 years. The tenure of the said scheme was for 84 months i.e. 48 months + 36 months. The total premium amount to be paid in 48 months, shall be kept for further 36 months in the account of the account holder. On completion of 84 months, maturity amount will be paid to the account holder. According to the said scheme if the account holder dies before maturity, the nominee of the account holder will be entitled for death benefit. While the policy was in force, the account holder Smt. Anadi Goenka died on 08.03.2005 due to cardiac arrest. On 22. 06. 2005, the nominee /respondent was paid the death maturity amount of Rs.27,246/-. Subsequently, after the death of the account holder, the respondent/complainant applied for death help as per the policy terms and conditions, but the appellant did not pay the said death help to the respondent/complainant on the ground that he is not satisfying the conditions laid down under Clause-8 of the scheme. Challenging the action of opposite parties, the complainant filed a complaint petition before learned Dist. Forum, Cuttack.

On receipt of the notice opp. party/appellant not appeared in the case and was set ex-parte on 22-06-2008. Challenging the ex-parte order the appellant filed First Appeal bearing No. 1010 of 2009 before this Commission. This Commission after hearing was pleased to set aside the order and remitted back the matter to learned Forum below for fresh disposal after giving opportunity to opp. Party No.1 to file written version and hearing. In pursuance to order dt.18-08-2010 of this Commission passed in F.A. No.1010/2009 the Opposite Party No.1 filed written version denying the allegations made in complaint petition and stating that the complaint petition is not maintainable as it is time barred and the Complainant has not fulfilled required formalities, the terms and conditions of the scheme. The Opposite Party No.1 at para-5 of the written version has stated that the death help facility is a discretionary facility as menti