AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The present revision petition has been filed against the order dated 4.2.2016 of the State Commission in Appeal No.1009/2014 of the respondent/complainant against the order dated 1.7.2014 in Complaint No.51/2010 of the respondent/complainant.
The brief facts of the matter are that husband of the respondent was engaged in the machinery work at Rasulpur, District Patan and had taken the insurance in respect of the said work with the opposite party and on 20.2.2009, while returning from his work he met with an accident and succumbed to this accidental death in the hospital. An FIR was also registered. The legal heirs of the deceased Ahmad Thakor filed a complaint claiming Rs.2 lakhs as compensation of accidental death under the insurance scheme and also claimed funeral expenditure. Other reliefs were also claimed.
The said complaint was decided on 22.9.2011 whereby a direction to the petitioner to pay the insurance amount of Rs.2 lakhs with 6% interest and cost of Rs.1000/- was passed by the District Forum. The petitioner thereafter filed appeal No.3371/2012 before the State Commission against the said order dated 22.9.2011. Vide order dated 21.8.2013, the said order was set aside and the matter was remanded for fresh trial to the District Forum. Thereafter, reply was filed by the petitioner before the District Forum wherein all the facts of the complaint were denied and it was stated that the deceased had not taken any insurance policy. It was alleged that in their office a scheme of accidental death aid was in force with the object to give economic assistance under the welfare scheme of the Government of Gujarat. It was stated that under the said scheme only when employee dies of accidental death at the site, he is entitled for the benefit under the said scheme. Parties led evidences and also filed relevant documents. After hearing the learned counsels for the parties and perusing the record the District Forum passed the following order: -
"Now considering the whole record of this case and the circumstances, one fact becomes clear that in this case the deceased has expired on the road because of the vehicular accident and hence it has not happened that at site of construction due to any accident he had expired. In those circumstances, considering the object mentioned in para-16 of the said judgment it becomes clear that the opponent have rejected the claim properly and with reasonable grounds and therein no any deficiency of service appears...."
After giving these findings, the District Forum issued following directions: -
ORDER
In consumer complaint No.51/2010 it is observed that the opponents of this case should pay to the complainant (consumer) applicant of this case Rs.2000/- with 9% interest under the funeral aid scheme from the date of scheme.
It is hereby ordered that the complainant (consumer) applicant ofthis case is not entitled to get Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees two lac only) under the accidental death aid scheme from the opponents and to that extent the claim is rejected.
The opponents of this case should pay Rs.3000/- to the complainant (consumer) applicant of this case towards mental torture and cost.
The opponents of this case should pay the amount as per the order to the complainant (consumer) applicant of this case directly by A/c payee cheque within 30 days and intimate this Forum.
The petitioner has not challenged this order and in compliance of District Forum's order the funeral charges of Rs.2000/- alongwith interest @ 9% and also paid sum of Rs.3,000/- towards mental torture and cost as directed by the District Forum. Since the District Forum has denied the claim of the complainant for the insurance sum under the accidental death scheme, the complainant filed appeal, in which the impugned order has been passed. In appeal, the similar contention has been raised by the petitioner that the deceased was not covered under the scheme since he did not die an accidental death at the site of his work.
After hearing both the parties, the State Commission passed the following order: -
"We have heard L.As of both the parties and perused the judgment of the Hon'ble Forum and considered the evidence produced. It is undisputed fact that the deceased was doing the machinery work and after doing the work at the site, while returning, he expired in a vehicular accident. It is also undisputed fact that the deceased was given Identity Card as the beneficiary of Gujarat Housing and other construction Shramyogi Welfare Board and as per the conditions mentioned in the said Identity Card Work (Shramyogi) should regularly deposit the annual contribution in t he board as decided by the Board. In the identity card at the bottom there is a signature of authorized person of the board and the same is not denied. The letter dated 18.1.2008 is produced on page No.6. The said letter has been written by the Secretary of Labour & Employment Department, Sachivalaya Gandhinagar to Gujarat Housing and Construction Shramyogi Welfare Board, Khanpur, Ahmedabad.
... ... ...
In view of aforesaid circumstances the deceased was possessing the identity card and after doing the machinery work and returning has expired at the site of the construction in an accident. Hence, under this circumstance the complainant is entitled to get compensation under this scheme. Therefore, following final order is passed"
ORDER
Appeal is allowed.
The Prativivadies are ordered thatthey should pay Rs.2,00,000/- (rupees two lacks only) to the Vivadi- Original complainant from the date of complaint with 6% interest.
The order passed by Hon'ble Forum that the opponents should pay Rs.2,000/- to the complainant is hereby confirmed.
No order is passed as to the cost of this appeal."
This order is impugned before us on the ground that since the deceased was not a consumer of the petitioner, the complaint was not maintainable and also that the deceased was not covered under the scheme since he had not suffered with accidental death at the site of his work. He has also relied on the judgment of in the case of Member Secretary, Gujarat Rural Works Welfare Board & Anr. Vs. Bariya Dineshbhai Veljibhai and other connected cases decided on 12.2.2016.
We have heard the arguments of the parties and have perused the relevant record.
It is admitted fact that the finding of the District Forum whereby District Forum had jurisdiction to deal with the complaint and thereafter in exercise of its jurisdiction under Consumer Protection Act issued the payment of funeral charges and compensation towards mental agony, was not challenged by the petitioner and rather it duly complied with the order of the District Forum and thereby had accepted the finding of the District Forum that the complaint was maintainable under the Consumer Protection Act and the District Forum had jurisdiction to deal with it. The petitioner had right to challenged the finding of the District Forum before the State Commission and by not doing so, the finding of the District Forum on this count that the complaint was maintainable under Consumer Protection Act, has become final. The facts in the case of Member Secretary, Gujarat Rural Works Welfare Board (supra), are different from the facts before us. In the said case, the petitioner had challenged the finding of the District Forum of the nature that the complaint was maintainable before the State Commission and when the State Commission had confirmed it, he challenged it in the revision petition in which the order dated 12.2.2016 had been passed. Here, however, the petitioner has not challenged the order of the District Forum alleging that the complaint was not maintainable under Consumer Protection Act and thereby granting relief in exercise of its jurisdiction under the Said Act. Therefore, the findings are not relevant. Moreover, at the place where the deceased was working, this scheme was applicant and under the said scheme money was paid by the Government of Gujarat. There are findings of fact by the State Commission to the effect that the deceased had identity card and that identity contain the signature of the authorised person of the Board making him covered under the accidental death scheme of the State of Gujarat. Our attention is drawn by learned counsel for the complainant/respondent to the policy dated 18.1.2008 and it is argue that since the deceased had met with the accident on 21.2.2008 which took away his life, the deceased was covered under this Scheme. The relevant portion of the scheme is reproduced as under: -
"To
The Secretary
The Gujarat Building and Construction Workers'
Welfare Board, Shram Bhavan, Khanpur,
Ahmedabad
Subject: For granting the Building and Construction Workers' Welfare Scheme
Sir,
With reference to the aforesaid subject it is informed that on 2/1/2007 the meeting of the Gujarat Building and Other Construction Workers' Welfare Board was held. In the said meeting, the resolution of the board to grant the welfare scheme of the workers doing construction was sent f or approval of the Government. In this regard after doing thorough deliberation with slight amendment the approval of the Government is given to the schemes mentioned in the annexure enclosed herewith.
Yours faithfully.
Sd/- Illegible
(K.B. Vasava)
Dy. Secretary
Labour and Employment Department"
The learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn our attention to a scheme at page 85 of this paper book and argued that this scheme clearly states that if a person dies at the place of work, then only he is covered under the scheme. The learned counsel has, however, failed to point out any date on this letter which can suggest the period for which this scheme was applicable or the period from which this scheme was in force. No covering letter or any other letter duly signed by authorise representative of the Government has been placed on record. Petitioner has, therefore, failed to convince us that the deceased was not covered under the scheme which states that only the workers who die at the place of work in an accident is entitled for the relief. On the other hand, the policy of the Government on which the respondent has relief clearly states that under this scheme any person who dies an accidental death is entitled for Rs.2,00,000/- under the scheme of accidental death. In view of this finding of fact, we find no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order. The revision petition has no merit and the same is dismissed.