AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The case was listed for final hearing vide the previous Order dated 04.09.2019.
At the first call in the forenoon session, learned counsel for the petitioner company was present. The learned arguing counsel was not present.
The learned counsel for the petitioner company could not submit details of compliance or otherwise of the directions contained in the previous Order dated 04.09.2019.
The case was passed over to 2.00 p.m. in the afternoon session, with a request to the learned counsel to submit details of compliance or otherwise of the directions contained in the previous Order dated 04.09.2019.
In the second call in the afternoon session at 2.00 p.m., learned counsel for the petitioner company is present.
Learned arguing counsel for the petitioner company is not present.
Learned counsel for the respondent no. 1 complainant is present.
Learned counsel for the respondent no. 2 insurance company is present.
The previous Order dated 04.09.2019 reads as below:
Learned proxy counsel for the petitioner company (M/s. Sahara India Limited) submits that the learned counsel is not available for arguments and seeks a pass-over.
Learned counsel for the complainant-brother-nominee-respondent no. 1 is present.
Learned counsel for the insurance company (National Insurance Company Limited) - respondent no. 2 is present.
It is 1.20 p.m. in the forenoon session.
In the afternoon session we have to take up original petition no. 210 of 2000, which is a case of alleged medical negligence, and is listed at 2.00 p.m. today for final hearing.
We are constrained to adjourn this case.
We have, but, perused the entire material on record.
The District Forum vide its Order dated 24.05.2012 had allowed the complaint:
In present case I have heard Ld. Counsels for both the parties.
On behalf of complainant and opposite parties copies of several judgments (relating to Hon'ble High court / Hon'ble Supreme Court) has been annexed.
On deep study and analysis of complaint, written statement of opposite parties, hearing arguments and documents available on records following facts come in light.
Complainant is bona-fide consumer of OP No.1 to 3. When OP No.1 sold its product Sahara Rajat Investment in hand of brother of complainant (now dead), at that time there was provision of interest on invested amount and of accidental death help in this scheme which was to be received by the person nominated by insured. The concerned documents are available on record means it was a inbuilt scheme. At the time of purchasing scheme which ever papers were handed over to the brother of complainant, it is no where mention in it that this deposit scheme is tagged with any other institution. The opposite parties did not give any information in this regard to insured any paper regarding the same could not be given by opposite parties to forum. Means the insured or person nominated by him (complainant in this case) knows only to OP No.1 to 3 and this is the reason that the complainant submitted information of death and other papers to OP No.1.
OP NO. 4 in its written statement has clearly written that written that it has came in knowledge of this matter only on receipt of notice from court means no information was given to it by OP No. 1 to 3 . When the complainant paid invested amount to complainant with interest, at that time also if it had sent all papers to OP No. 4 then something could be done positive.
The OP No.1 to 3 in its joint written statement has raised which issue of intentional killing regarding murder by giving clarification and has tried to prove that such type of murder is not accident, this puts question mark on its intention, such pleading is expected from any concerned insurance company.
Merely on such plea that the submission of intimation / papers has been done in delay, the insurance claim of any person cannot be declined. The complainant in this regard has annexed photocopy of judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court which is on record.
From the above facts this fact is crystal clear that the opposite parties 1 to 3 have caused deficiency in service by not making payment of death help amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- which was included in its Sahara Rajat Scheme.
Hence forum directs to OP No. 1, 2, 3 that they shall pay amount of death help Rs. 1,00,000/- to complainant within 01 months from the date of order and shall also pay Rs. 25,000/- as compensation and expenses in case of otherwise interest @ 9% per annum shall be payable on total amount of RS.1,25,000/- additionally from the date of order till the date of payment. Thus complaint stands finally disposed of.
(extracts from the District Forum's Order)
(as per the translated copy supplied by the petitioner)
The State Commission vide its Order dated 11.01.2017 concurred with the findings of deficiency in service and partially modified the award (by reducing the compensation):
Having considered the submissions of parties and on perusal of the order passed by the District Forum, it appears that the District Forum has considered the matter is correct perspective. Death help is an interest free loan and it is given to the heirs of investors on satisfaction of the appellant - Sahara India. As the invested amount with interest has already been accepted by the complainant (respondent) and almost all terms and conditions of death help has been fulfilled by the complainant (respondent). Hence, the complainant (Respondent) is entitled to get the death help, the District Forum order is proper and justified. However compensation amount Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand) only does not seen proper. It is reduce to Rs. 5,000/-(Rupees five thousand) only. With this modification the District Forum order is affirmed and the appeal is partly allowed.
(para 7 of the State Commission's Order)
This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner company under section 21(b) of the Act 1986 against the said Order dated 11.01.2017 of the State Commission.
The two fora below have arrived at concurrent findings, and fixed the liability on the petitioner company (M/s Sahara India Ltd.).
It is admitted that the deceased-investor-insured was murdered. It is also admitted that as an investor he was covered under the 'accidental death claim' policy.
The short limited point raised in this revision petition is whether the liability to pay the complainant i.e. the brother-nominee of the deceased-investor-insured is of the petitioner company or of the insurance company or of both (joint and several).
It is not the petitioner company's case that the complainant-brother-nominee of the deceased-investor-insured has not to be paid the assured amount.
The case professed by the petitioner company is that the liability qua the complainant-brother-nominee of the deceased-investor-insured is only of the insurance company and not of the petitioner company.
The death of the deceased-investor-insured occurred in 2006. The complaint was filed before the District Forum in 2009. The District Forum decided the case in 2012. The appeal was filed before the State Commission in 2012. The State Commission decided the appeal in 2017. The revision petition has been filed before this Commission in 2017. About 13 years have elapsed from the death of the deceased-investor-insured.
We fail to understand as to why the complainant-brother-nominee of the deceased-investor-insured has to wait, further, even after 13 years of the death of the deceased-investor-insured, for the dispute between the petitioner company and the insurance company to be resolved, as to which of the two or both are liable to pay the complainant-brother-nominee of the deceased-investor-insured, moreso when it is admitted by the petitioner company that it does not dispute that the payment to the complainant-brother-nominee has to be duly made.
We are of the considered view that it would albeit be a travesty of justice if the ordinary common consumer i.e. the complainant-brother-nominee of the deceased-investor-insured has to, now, after 13 years of the death of the deceased-investor-insured, and after agitating (successfully) in two consumer protection fora, stand arrayed in a third consumer protection forum as respondent no. 1 and wait and watch for the petitioner company and the respondent no. 2-insurance company to settle their dispute apropos their respective liability towards him.
We fail to readily understand what prevents the petitioner company to settle the amount due to the brother-nominee of its deceased investor-insured, without prejudice to its right to agitate its dispute with the insurance company and to raise all its issues and contentions against the insurance company.
We also fail to readily understand what prevents the petitioner company to independently and separately agitate its case with its insurance company, without troubling and prejudicing the brother-nominee of its deceased investor-insured.
In the facts and unusual specificities of the case, we deem it appropriate and necessary that, in the first instance, the entire decretal amount shall be deposited by the petitioner company with the District Forum within six weeks from today.
We would also require a responsible authorized functionary of the petitioner company to be present on the next date to conclude the final hearing.
We also take note of Regulation 11 of the Regulations 2005 which speaks of 'Adjournment'.
For being constrained to adjourn the case and not being able to conduct the final hearing today (refer para 1 above), a cost of Rs. 25,000/- is imposed on the petitioner company (M/s Sahara India Limited), to be paid by the petitioner company (M/s Sahara India Limited) to the respondent no. 1-complainant-brother-nominee through 'payee's a/c only' demand draft directly in his favour within four weeks from today.
List on 14.11.2019 for final hearing.
It is made clear that the absence of any learned counsel or party will not be a ground for any further adjournment and the case will be heard in the presence of the learned counsel and party present and on the basis of record.
'Dasti', in addition, to facilitate timely compliance.
Compliance of the directions contained in paras 12 and 15 of the above-quoted Order dated 04.09.2019 has not been reported on the case-file.
Learned counsel for the petitioner company submits, on instructions, that the compliance has not been made.
In disregard of the direction contained in para 13 of the said Order dated 04.09.2019, no authorized functionary of the petitioner company is present.
The bench re-emphasizes and takes particular note of paras 3 to 11 of the Order dated 04.09.2019.
The bench also notes that essentially the dispute is between the petitioner company and the insurance company. The learned arguing counsel of the petitioner company is not present. An authorized representative of the petitioner company is not present. The learned counsel for the complainant, who is being put to continuous prejudice in a dispute that is essentially between the petitioner company and the insurance company, is present.
Invoking the revisional jurisdiction of this Commission has concomitant responsibility of professional conduct of its case, and moreso when the revision petition has been filed against concurrent findings of the two fora below, and even moreso when the facts and specificities of the case, as succinctly summed-up in paras 3 to 11 of the Order dated 04.09.2019, are as they are, and even moreso still when the complainant is being put to continuous prejudice in a dispute that is essentially between the petitioner company and the insurance company.
Professional conduct of its case by the petitioner company is patently lacking.
The petition is dismissed for failure and omission to comply with the directions of this Commission and for unprofessional conduct of its case before this Commission.
'Dasti', in addition.