2011 INDLAW NCDRC 443 [NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] NEW DELHI BENCH Sahara India Commercial

Corporation Limited, Through Branch Manager, Orissa v (1) Purnanda Mohanta S/o Late Gadadhar Mohanta; (2) Sailendra Kumar Mohanta S/o Late Abhiram Mohanta ASHOK BHAN (PRESIDENT) 23 Nov 2011 BENCH: ASHOK BHAN (PRESIDENT) & Vineeta Rai (Member) (Appeal from judgment/order dated 20 Jun 2007 in Appeal No. 1422/2003 of the STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, ORISSA) CASE NO:- Revision Petition No. 3181 of 2007 KEYWORDS: CONSUMER PROTECTION, District Forum, Delhi LAWYERS:- Hitesh Kr. Saini, S. K. Das .JUDGMENT TEXT The Judgment was delivered by : Ashok Bhan (President) M/s. Sahara India Commercial Corporation Ltd., Petitioner herein which was the opposite party before the District Forum has filed the present Revision Petition. FACTS:Petitioner floated a Scheme known as "Sahara 10". As per terms and conditions of the Scheme, nominee of the bond holder who had subscribed to the bond of Rs.10,000/- was entitled to get Rs.10,000/- per month for a period of 10 years in case of death of bond holder. Prafulla Chandra Mohanta subscribed to the bond of Rs.10,000/-. On 15.09.01, Prafulla Chandra Mohanta died. Respondents being nominees submitted their claim along with all the documents but their claim was not settled on the ground that they had not submitted the necessary documents in time. Aggrieved by this, Respondents/Complainants filed the complaint before the District Forum. Petitioner entered appearance and filed its written statement. In the reply, defence taken by the Petitioner was that the claim of the Respondents could not be settled in time for lack of required papers and documents which were to be submitted by them. That since the terms and conditions of "death help" under the bond, "Sahara 10" were not fulfilled by the Respondents by submitting the required papers and documents, the Petitioner was not liable to settle the claim. It was admitted that the Respondents were nominees of the deceased bond-holder. It was denied that the Petitioner were guilty of unfair trade practice or there was any deficiency in service. Respondents/Complainants had produced and relied upon the following documents before the District Forum:1. The copy of letter of the complainants dated 11.12.01 to the O.P. No.1 for settlement of claim marked as Exhibit -1. 2. The copy of Sahara-10 Bond's option marked as Exhibit - 2. 3. The copy of money receipt of Rs.10,000/- dated 31.7.2000 issued in favour of the deceased P.C. Mohanta marked as Exhibit-3. 4. The copy of death certificate of the deceased, P.C. Mohanta dated 5.11.2001 issued by the Medical Officer, Barsahi, CHC, marked as Exhibit-4. 5. The copy of letter of Sr. Deputy Senior Manager, Sahara India Pariwar dated 14.1.2003 to the complainant No.1 marked as Exhibit-5. 6. The copy of acknowledgement of receipt of required documents and papers from the

Complainants dated 26.09.03 given by OP No.1 marked as Exhibit-6. 7. The joint affidavit of the complainants dated 12.11.03 marked as Exhibit-7. Since the required documents had been produced by the Respondents before the District Forum, the District Forum gave more than one opportunities to the Petitioner to settle the claim and pay off the entire dues to the Complainants on 1.10.03. After receipt of the required papers and documents, the petitioner agreed to settle the claim. However, Petitioners did not settle the claim and stopped appearing before the District Forum. District Forum ordered ex-parte proceedings against the Respondent. District Forum, after taking into consideration that the evidence led by the Respondents remained unchallenged, allowed the complaint and directed the Petitioner to pay Rs.10,000/from September 2001 onward and clear up the entire accumulated dues of Rs.2,60,000/- upto the month of October, 2003 with compensation of Rs.2,000/- and Rs.500/- as costs, within 30 days from the date of passing of the order. Paras 11 and 12 of the order of the District Forum read as under:"11. It is an admitted fact that the deceased, Prafulla Mohanta had purchased a "Sahara-10" option bond from the Baripada Branch of "Sahara India Pariwar" for a Rs.10,000/- on 31.7.2000 and he died on 15.09.2001. After his death the complainant being the nominees claimed the death help under the Scheme of the Bond. Because the both the OP No.1 & 2 in their written versions have admitted these facts. The O.P.No.1 also admits that the complainants are the nominees of the deceased bond holder. But the OP No.1 takes the plea that the claim could not be settle earlier due to non-submission of required papers and documents by the complainant. The Forum in its order dated 23.08.03 gave more than one month's time to settle the claim and pay off the entire dues to complainants. On 1.10.03 after receipt of all the required papers and documents from them, both the parties agreed to this but the O.P.No.1 did not settle the claim for which the case was taken up for hearing. On the date of hearing, the OPs are found absent on repeated calls. The Complainants adduced their evidence in shape of an affidavit vide Exhibit-7. But the O.P.No.1 did not remain in the Forum to cross-examine the complainants on the date fixed. He neither challenged the joint affidavit of the complainants by way of cross-examination nor challenged the other documents filed by the Complainants vide Exhibit 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6. As both the affidavit and other documents go unchallenged, we have no option before us to admit them as evidence correct. The complainants in their joint affidavit dated 12.11.03 vide Ext.-7 have clearly and categorically stated their case. Again we find from the Exhibit -6 that the Baripada branch of "Sahara India Partiwar" had received all the required documents papers from the complainants on 26.09.2003 for settlement of the claim as per Forum's order dated 23.08.03. But it did not settle the claim and pay of the dues till the conclusion of hearing of the case on 20.11.3, even after the complainants complied with their requirements of submitting papers and documents on 26.09.03." After going through the pleadings of both the parties and the materials placed before us we come to a finding that both the OP No.1 & 2 have adopted unfair trade practice U/S 2 (1) (r) of C.P. Act, 1986 in not settling up the claim of the nominees (the complainants) and paying off the death help dues to them in time as per the terms and conditions of the bond vide Ext.-2 taking the plea of non-submission of required papers and documents and a dilatory tactic to avoid payments. As per the terms and conditions of the bond vide Ext.-2, the nominee/nominees are entitled to get Rs.10,000/- per month for a period of one decade (120 months) after the death of the bond holder. The deceased bond holder died on 15.09.2001 at the age of 30 years. Hence, the nominees (the complainants) are entitled to get Rs.10,000/- per month from September, 2001 onwards. Accordingly, we direct both the OP No.1 and 2 making them jointly and severally liable to pay Rs.10,000/- per month to the complainants from September, 2001 onward and clear up the entire accumulated dues of Rs.2,60,000/- up to the month of October,

03 within a period of 30 days from the date of this order and to pay the compensation of Rs.2,000/- u/s 14 (1) (d) of the C.P. Act, 1986 for mental agony and harassment and also Rs.500/- for the costs of the proceedings". * Aggrieved by the order passed by the District Forum, Petitioner filed an appeal before the State Commission which had been dismissed by the impugned order. State Commission observed that the plea taken by the Petitioner that some documents were not furnished, could not be accepted in view of the Exhibit P-6 which was an acknowledgement of the receipt of the required documents/papers by the Petitioner from the Respondent. It was further observed that since the evidence led by the Respondents remained uncontroverted, the District Forum had rightly allowed the complaint. Petitioner being aggrieved, has filed the present Revision Petition. Plea taken by the Petitioner that it did not settle the claim of the Respondent as it did not receive the required documents from them, cannot be accepted. Respondents had produced all the relevant documents before the District Forum. On 1.10.03, Petitioner had agreed to settle the claim. After making this statement, Petitioner stopped appearing before the District Forum and were proceeded ex-parte. Allegations made by the Respondents in their complaint which are duly supported by the affidavit filed in evidence, remained uncontroverted as the Petitioner did not lead any evidence or cross-examine the witnesses produced by the Respondents. Plea taken by the Petitioner that the claim of the Respondent could not be settled for want of production of documents by the Respondents/Complainants, cannot be accepted. Exhibit P-6 is an acknowledgement of receipt of required documents /papers by the Petitioner from the Respondent. District Forum in its order has observed that the requisite documents were handed over to the Petitioner on 1.10.03. Submission of the Petitioner that Respondents had not submitted the requisite documents cannot be accepted in view of Exhibit P-6 and the finding recorded by the District Forum that all the requisite documents were handed over to the Petitioner on 1.10.03. Petitioner instead of settling the claim as assured by it to the District Forum, stopped appearing before the District Forum. For the reasons stated above, we do not find any merit in this Revision Petition and dismiss the same with costs which are assessed at Rs.10,000/-. Note: The headnotes and editorial enhancements in the judgment text are unique to this web publication and may not be reflected as such in the original judgment transcript of the court or in publications whose comparative citations are indexed in the database. ICPL shall have no liability whatsoever to licensee in any way related to the presentation, pagination, format, adequacy or inadequacy of this content.