CHAIRMAN, THE SALES TAX EMPLOYEES' CO-OP. CREDIT SOCIETY LTD. vs GITABEN

ONE Hathibhai Mor was serving in the Sales Tax Department of the Government at Palanpur and happened to be a member of opponent Society which has been running a scheme known as Employees'' Assistance Fund (Karamchari Sahayak Fund). A member of the Society was required to pay contribution as per relevant clause of the scheme. In case the member does not deposit the contribution for a period of three months continuously, his membership was liable to be cancelled. It was the case of the complainants before the learned Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Banaskantha in Complaint Case No. 22 of 2001 that said Hathibhai was regularly depositing contribution amount but unfortunately he died on 29.4.2000 on account of the ailment of T.B. It was also the case of the complainants that he was not able to report for duty since 22.12.1999 on account of the said ailment and his leave was not sanctioned and salary bills were not prepared. That resulted into default on the part of the said member in depositing the amount of contribution in the opponent Society. However, contribution for a period of two months and share contribution were credited in the opponent Society on 21.1.2001. The complainants gave reasons for not depositing the contribution as stated above. Opponent Society informed about the contribution remaining outstanding and, therefore, an amount of Rs. 435/- was deposited on 12.5.2000 and Rs. 165/- was deposited on 12.6.2000. Opponent Society accepted that amount. It was the case of the complainants that under said circumstances they were entitled to the benefits available to a member of the opponent Society. The complainants, therefore, gave notice dated 15.5.2000 to the opponent society and the opponent Society replied by letter dated 1.6.2000 saying that the deceased member was a defaulter and was not entitled to the amount under the scheme and complainants were entitled to the credit amount in the sum of Rs. 10,080/- only. This resulted into filing of the complaint before the learned Forum by the complainants. The opponent Society resisted the complaint inter alia on the same ground, namely deceased employee Hathibhai was a defaulter and under the clauses of the scheme, he was not entitled to the benefit of welfare amount/insurance amount. The opponent Society also contended that there was no deficiency in service in such circumstances. After considering the pleadings of the parties and material placed on record as also decision in the case of Estate Officer v. Dr. (Mrs.) Indira Sharan, reported in II (1996) CPJ 384=1996 (2) CPR 290, the learned Forum came to the conclusion that after having accepted the amount tendered by the complainant, opponent society was not entitled to deprive the complainants of the benefits of the scheme. The learned Forum, therefore, issued directions to the opponent Society to pay the full amount under the scheme and cost quantified at Rs. 1,001/- as per the impugned order dated 30.6.2001.

WE have heard the learned Advocates for the parties. WE have gone through the relevant clauses/rules of the scheme in which deceased Hathibhai was a member. Clause 7 of the scheme clearly indicates that if there is default for a continuous period of three months in depositing the contribution amount, the benefits under the scheme would not be available to a member. In our considered opinion it was for the deceased employee to see that there was no default in paying the contribution regularly to the opponent Society. Merely because he was not able to attend to his service on account of his ailment of TB, the burden cannot be shifted on the opponent society. Besides, it is not the case of the complainants that opponent Society was informed about the ailment of deceased Hathibhai. It is also not their case that they had intimated the opponent Society about the death of Hathibhai. It is only when the opponent Society intimated the concerned member about the default that was committed that the complainants tried to pay the contribution without making the opponent Society aware of the fact that the member had died. It has clearly appeared from the facts of the case that the opponent Society was kept in dark with regard to the date of death of the aforesaid member Hathibhai and the contribution was accepted by the opponent Society from the complainants after the death of the member without there being any knowledge on its part about the death of the said member. In our considered opinion, these circumstances clearly appear to have escaped the attention of the learned Forum. It would, therefore, clearly appear that there was no deficiency in service on the part of the opponent Society in rejecting the claim of benefit under the scheme and offering the amount which was lying to the credit of deceased Hathibhai in the records of the opponent Society to the complainants. We have gone also through the decision of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Uttar Pradesh in Branch Manager, Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Smt. Mohana Devi & Anr., reported in 2002 (2) CPR 149. That was a case with respect to Salary Saving Scheme and will have no applicability to the facts and circumstances of the present case. Thus, on merits the complainants would not be entitled to the benefits under the scheme but we could persuade the opponent Society to pay to the complainants some more amount out of compassion and ex gratia. In that view of the matter, we propose to pass following order. ORDER Impugned order dated 30.6.2001 rendered by the learned Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Banaskantha in Complaint Case No. 22 of 2001 is hereby set aside. Instead, the opponent Society will pay to the complainants a sum of Rs. 23,000/- lumpsum which will include the amount lying to the credit of the account of deceased Hathibhai in the books of the opponent Society. The opponent Society has deposited Rs. 15,000/- in this Commission. Office to verify that amount to pay it to complainant No. 1 by A/c. Payee cheque. Balance amount shall be paid by the opponent Society within six weeks from today. This appeal is accordingly partly allowed, with no order as to costs throughout. Appeal partly allowed.