ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, STATE INSURANCE And G.P.F. vs Sagarmal

THIS appeal under Sec. 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (''the Act'' herein) is directed against the order dated 31.1.92 passed by the District Forum, Sri Ganganagar in Complaint Case No. 30/91. By the impugned order the District Forum directed the opposite parties-appellants to pay Rs. 11,684/- to the complainant-respondent. It further ordered that amount of Rs. 1,000/- should also be paid to the complainantrespondent on account of financial loss and mental agony.

THE complainant-respondent had endowment policy No. 19100 from the State Insurance. He retired from Government service as District Education Officer on 30.6.89 on attaining superannuation age of 58 years. THE claims were paid on 12.7.89 vide authority letter dated 7.7.89. THE complainant-respondent was also paid a reversionery and interim bonus @ Rs. 41/- per thousand. THE complainant has alleged that the rate of bonus as declared on 9.1.90 was Rs. 66/- for the period from 1983 to 1989 and Rs. 72/- were declared on 5.2.91 for the period subsequent thereto. He has claimed bonus @ Rs. 66/- per thousand instead of Rs. 41/- per thousand and also the difference of actual paid bonus and declared bonus. THE amount as such came to Rs. 3,784/-. He has prayed that this amount may be ordered to be paid to him. THE complainant has further claimed the conesquential increase on the basis of revised formulas. Thus the total amount claimed by him was Rs. 11,663.95. A sum of Rs. 10,000/- was claimed as compensation for mental agony. Expenses were also claimed. The opposite parties-appellants contested the complaint. It was pleaded that vide para 5 of Rajasthan Finance (R & A I) Department Order No. 13(30) FD/R&AI/76 dated 9.1.90 the bonus as prevailed on the date of maturity of the policy was payable and that the increase in bonus was not admissible on the policies matured prior to the date of the announcement of the bonus. It was also pleaded by the Department of State Insurance that while multiple formula applied for calculation and that it was correctly applied on the new sum assured as per rules applicable in the case of the complainant. The amounts claimed by the complainant were denied. It was submitted that a sum or Rs. 452/- was recoverable from the complainant as that sum was paid in excess to him on account of calculation mistake. A prayer was made in the version of the case for the refund of the amount of Rs. 452/-.

The District Forum heard the arguments on 15.1.92 and passed the impugned order on 30.1.92. We heard Mr. M.L. Vyas, Advocate for the appellants and Mr. Sagarmal, respondent in person. We have also perused the written reply which was received from the complainant-respondent on 12.11.92.

5. AFTER bestowing our most anxious and thoughtful consideration to the rival contentions raised by the learned Counsel for the appellants and the complainant-respondent, we have come to the conclusion that the order under appeal has to be set aside. Before we proceed further it may be mentioned that the District Forum relied on an order passed by the State Commission in Damodar Das Maheshwari v. Director, State Insurance Department (Appeal No. 79/89 decided on 7.12.89) and observed that the complainant-respondent is entitled to the increase in the reversionery bonus, interim bonus and terminal bonus according to the formulas as were applicable on the old sum assured. The District Forum in the impugned order has stated that the order No. F.13 (30) FD/E & A/76 dated 9.1.90 being contrary to the order rendered in Damodar Das Maheshwari''s case (supra) is ineffective and cannot be said to be legal Mr. Vyas has placed reliance on the Departmental order dated 9.1.90 which reads as under: "The Governor has been pleased to accord sanction to the following bonus being declared on the basis of recommendations made in the Actual Valuation Report of the Insurance Fund of the State Insurance Department, Government of Rajasthan as at 31st March, 1987: (1) A simple reversionary bonus of Rs. 66/- per thousand sum assured (including additional sum assured or special increase) per annum on all Endowment assurance contracts in force on 31.3.1987 for the full sum assured in respect of each Assurance Year entered upon on or after 1.4.83 or the date of commencement, whichever is later, and before 31.3.1987. (2)A simple reversionary bonus of Rs. 82.50 per thousand sum assured (including additional sum assured or special increase) per annum on all whole life assurance contracts in force on 31.3.1987 for the full sum assured in respect of each assurance year entered upon on or after 1.4.83 or the date of commencement, whichever is later and before 31.3.1987. (3)Interim bonus on assurance contracts becoming claim subsequent on 31.3.1987 and until the next valuation results are announced in respect of each Assurance Year entered upon on or after 31.3.1987 as below: (i) Endowment Assurance at Rs. 66/- per thousand sum assured (including additional sum assured or special increase) per annum; (ii) Whole Life Assurance at Rs. 83.50 per thousand sum assured (including additional sum assured or special increase) per annum. (4) Terminal Bonus (in addition, to the interim bonus) @ Rs. 4/- per thousand sum assured (including additional sum assured or special increase) per annum for each assurance year from commencement of the assurance to the date of maturity in respect of policies resulting in claims by maturity till the next valuation results are announced. (5) The rates of bonus as at paras 1 & 2 above will not apply to cases resulting into claims by death or maturity prior to the date of issue of this order and such cases shall be settled at the rates approved by the Government, vide its Order No. F.13(30)FD/R & A 1/76 dated 1.6.1985." Para 5 of the above order makes clear that the bonus is payable at the rate which existed on the date of maturity of the policy irrespective of the enhancement of the rate with retrospective effect. According to the order only those policy holders whose claims are matured after the enhancement of the increased bonus are entitled to the benefit of such an increase from retrospective effect. The District Forum in our opinion was not right in considering the validity of the above order. In view of para 5 of the order referred to above, the complainant is not entitled to get the difference in bonus as he attained the age of superannaution on 30.6.89 and all claims were paid on 12.7.89 vide authority letter referred to above which was issued before the coming into force of the order, as his policy had already matured before coining into force the order. It may be mentioned that the Redressal Forums constituted under the Act can only grant those reliefs are enumerated in Sec. 14(1) of the Act and not beyond that. The reliefs granted by the District Forum are not covered by Section 14(1) of the Act. As stated above, the District Forum could not question the validity of the order referred to above relating to the payment of bonus. As there was no negligence on the part of the opposite party the payment of difference of amounts was not warranted as bonus @ Rs. 41/- per thousand to which the complainant was entitled had already been paid. The complainant-respondent is not entitled to any compensation under Section 14(1)(d) of the Act and so a sum of Rs. 1,000/- has wrongly been awarded to him, for, which we do not find any justification. In our considered opinion the complaint filed by the complainant-respondent was misconceived.

Before closing this case we would like to invite attention of the opposite parties-appellants to the observations made in Damodar Das Maheshwari''s case (supra) which are as under: "We hope and trust that the State Government will sympathetically consider the case of the complainant as and when bonus for the slab year 1983-88 is declared and pay the difference to him, though he has retired, to avoid discrimination between the employees similarly situated. We further hope that the Government will take appropriate steps to remove the anomaly when it declares bonus for the slab year 1983-88 of those employees whose cases have been settled and who have attain superannuation on and from 1.4.89 until the date When the bonus is declared." However, we may state that on the basis of these observations the District Forum was not justified in holding that the order was ineffective or illegal. The question which was raised by the learned Counsel for the appellants in this appeal was also raised before the State Commission in Dy. Director, State Insurance Department, Bikaner v. Dr. N.K. Harneja (Appeal No. 212/91 decided on 15.1.92). The reasoning given in this case is applicable and squarely governs the appeal in hand.

THE result is that appeal succeeds and the order dated 31.1.92 passed by the District Forum, Sri Ganganagar in Complaint Case No. 30/91 is set aside. THE complaint shall stand dismissed. THEre will be no order as to costs. If any amount has been deposited in pursue ance of the order passed in appeal on 21.5.92, it shall be returned to the appellants. Appeal succeeds.