-1- JUSTICE V.K. JAIN, PRESIDING MEMBER (ORAL) Late Shashi Bhushan Yadav, son of the complainant / respondent No.1 made investment in a Scheme / Plan of the petitioner known as Sahara Swaran Yojna / Sahara Rajat Yojna. Under the said scheme, in the event of his death in an accident, his nominee was entitled to accidental benefit stipulated in the said scheme / plan. The aforesaid amount, in terms of the option exercised by the deceased was Rs.2,00,000/-. The deceased having died in an accident, a claim for payment of the aforesaid amount was lodged by the complainant, he being the nominee for the purpose. The petitioner however, paid only a sum of Rs.50,000/- to him. For the payment of the balance amount, a request was made by the petitioner to National Insurance Company Ltd. from whom an insurance policy had been taken by it. Since the aforesaid amount was not paid either by the petitioner or by the National Insurance Company, the complainant approached the concerned District Forum by way of a consumer complaint, impleading both the companies as the opposite parties in the complaint.
2. The complaint was resisted by the petitioner on the ground that it had settled the claim by paying Rs.50,000/- to the complainant and had also requested National Insurance Company Ltd. to pay the balance amount. National Insurance Company Ltd. resisted the complaint, taking a stand that it had nothing to do with the complainant and was not liable to indemnify him.
3. The District Forum vide its order dated 30.11.2012, directed the petitioner company to pay a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- to the complainant, along with interest @ 7% per annum and compensation and cost of litigation quantified at Rs.25,000/-.
4. Being aggrieved from the order passed by the District Forum, the petitioner company approached the concerned State Commission by way of an appeal. The said appeal having been dismissed, the petitioner is before this Commission by way of this revision petition.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner company submits that since they had taken an insurance policy from the National Insurance Company, the balance amount of Rs.1,50,000/- was payable by the said insurance company and not by the petitioner company. I however, find no merit in this contention. Clause-18 of the terms and conditions, governing the scheme in which the investment was made by the deceased, clearly shows that in the event of the death of the investor in an accident, his nominee was entitled to the amount specified in the said clause. Admittedly, the amount payable in terms of the option exercised by the deceased came to Rs.2,00,000/-. The aforesaid Clause does not provide for payment of the accidental benefit by National Insurance Company or any other insurer of the petitioner. The said clause is an agreement between the petitioner and the deceased where-under in the event of his death in an accident his nominee was entitled to a sum of Rs.2,00,000/-. If the petitioner company had an arrangement with National Insurance Company or any other insurer for making the whole or a part of the said payment, it is for the petitioner company to pursue its remedy against such an insurer. Admittedly, the deceased was not in a party to the alleged agreement / arrangement / policy between the Petitioner Company and National Insurance Company. Therefore, the complainant cannot be asked to recover the balance amount of Rs.1,50,000/- from the insurance company. The deceased having made investment in the scheme of the petitioner company taking into consideration accidental benefit payable to his nominee in the event of his death in an accident, the petitioner company cannot be allowed to back out of the promise made by it and the failure of the petitioner company to pay the balance amount of Rs.1,50,000/- to the complainant amounts to deficiency in the services. The impugned orders therefore, do not call for any interference by this Commission in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction. The revision petition being devoid of any merit is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs. ......................J V.K. JAIN PRESIDING MEMBER
Branch Manager, Sahara India Commercial Corporation Ltd. & 2 Ors v. Satya Narayan Yadav & Anr
Branch Manager, Sahara India Commercial Corporation Ltd. & 2 Ors v. Satya Narayan Yadav & Anr
(National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi)
Revision Petition No. 73/2017 | 24-01-2017
Advocate List
Bench
- MR. V.K. JAIN, PRESIDING MEMBER
Eq Citations
- LQ/NCDRC/2017/201
Head Note
Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Ss. 2(1)(o), 2(1)(o)(i), 2(1)(o)(ii), 2(1)(o)(iii), 2(1)(o)(iv), 2(1)(o)(v), 2(1)(o)(vi), 2(1)(o)(vii), 2(1)(o)(viii), 2(1)(o)(ix), 2(1)(o)(x), 2(1)(o)(xi), 2(1)(o)(xii), 2(1)(o)(xiii), 2(1)(o)(xiv), 2(1)(o)(xv), 2(1)(o)(xvi), 2(1)(o)(xvii), 2(1)(o)(xviii), 2(1)(o)(xix), 2(1)(o)(xx), 2(1)(o)(xxi), 2(1)(o)(xxii), 2(1)(o)(xxiii), 2(1)(o)(xxiv), 2(1)(o)(xxv), 2(1)(o)(xxvi), 2(1)(o)(xxvii), 2(1)(o)(xxviii), 2(1)(o)(xxix), 2(1)(o)(xxx), 2(1)(o)(xxxi), 2(1)(o)(xxxii), 2(1)(o)(xxxiii), 2(1)(o)(xxxiv), 2(1)(o)(xxxv), 2(1)(o)(xxxvi), 2(1)(o)(xxxvii), 2(1)(o)(xxxviii), 2(1)(o)(xxxix), 2(1)(o)(xl), 2(1)(o)(xli), 2(1)(o)(xlii), 2(1)(o)(xliii), 2(1)(o)(xliv), 2(1)(o)(xlv), 2(1)(o)(xlvi), 2(1)(o)(xlvii), 2(1)(o)(xlviii), 2(1)(o)(xlix), 2(1)(o)(l), 2(1)(o)(li), 2(1)(o)(lii), 2(1)(o)(liii), 2(1)(o)(liv), 2(1)(o)(lv), 2(1)(o)(lvi), 2(1)(o)(lvii), 2(1)(o)(lviii), 2(1)(o)(lix), 2(1)(o)(lx), 2(1)(o)(lxi), 2(1)(o)(lxii), 2(1)(o)(lxii), 2(1)(o)(lxiii), 2(1)(o)(lxiv), 2(1)(o)(lxiv), 2(1)(o)(lxv), 2(1)(o)(lxvi), 2(1)(o)(lxvii), 2(1)(o)(lxviii), 2(1)(o)(lxix), 2(1)(o)(lxx), 2(1)(o)(lxxi), 2(1)(o)(lxii), 2(1)(o)(lxii), 2(1)(o)(lxiv), 2(1)(o)(lxiv), 2(1)(o)(lxvi), 2(1)(o)(lxvii), 2(1)(o)(lxviii), 2(1)(o)(lxix), 2(1)(o)(lxx), 2(1)(o)(lxxi), 2(1)(o)(lxii), 2(1)(o)(lxii), 2(1)(o)(lxiv), 2(1)(o)(lxiv), 2(1)(o)(lxvi), 2(1)(o)(lxvii), 2(1)(o)(lxviii), 2(1)(o)(lxix), 2(1)(o)(lxx), 2(1)(o)(lxxi), 2(1)(o)(lxii), 2(1)(o)(lxii), 2(1)(o)(lxiv), 2(1)(o)(lxiv), 2(1)(o)(lxvi), 2(1)(o)(lxvii), 2(1)(o)(lxviii), 2(1)(o)(lxix), 2(1)(o)(lxx), 2(1
