M/S. Sahara India Limited & Anr vs Geeta Devi & Anr

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 not 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-wife-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 07.08.2012 had partly allowed the complaint:

After hearing both parties according to para 18 of passbook there is provision of payment of Rs. 2,00,000/- after accidental death. Rs. 50,000/- was given to applicant Geeta Devi as interim relief and the amount Rs. 10,000/- deposited by her husband has been paid with interest. The complainant has accepted this also. From the documents filed by complainant it becomes clear that the complainant is heir of deceased. In this regard first receipt of Sahara Rajat Scheme depositing Rs. 10,000/- voter identity card of Geeta Devi, photocopy of application given for after death benefit from accident, reminder letter dated 13.09.2008, photocopy of reminder letter 04.10.2008, adjustment order dated 24.09.2008, FIR, Photocopy of charge-sheet, photocopy of postmortem report and condition printed on passbook have been filed whereby it becomes clear that the claim of applicant is correct which cannot be compensated from the amount given in interim relief because according to condition applicant is entitled to get Rs. 2,00,000/-. The passbook of husband of applicant is relating to Sahara India and amount has also been deposited in Sahara India itself therefore, Sahara India only is liable for payment of the amount because husband of complainant is consumer of Sahara India and not of National Insurance of India. Hence forum directs that Sahara India shall pay remaining amount of Rs. 1,50,000/- besides amount of Rs. 50,000/- with interest of 6% per annum from the date of filing claim within 45 days to complainant and also for mental harassment Rs. 5,000/- and for litigation expenses Rs. 2000/- shall be paid. After 45 days the complainant shall be entitled to get interest at the rate of 6% per annum on principle amount till the date of payment the case stands accepted partly with above order.

(extracts from the District Forum's Order)

(as per the translated copy supplied by the petitioner company)

The State Commission vide its Order dated 06.02.2017 had dismissed the appeal:

Admittedly the deceased had an account obtained under Sahara Rajat Yojana with additional facility of accidental death benefit of sum of Rs.2 lacs payable to the nominee in case of death of account holder due to accident and since the death of account holder caused due to accident not in dispute, we find the order passed by the District just and proper and based on evidences for holding the appellants liable for payment of balance amount under the additional benefit provided under accidental death as mentioned in the clause 18(4) of the Pass Book issued under Sahara Rahat Yojana to the complainant as nominee.

Taking in to consideration the above facts and circumstances of the present case, we do not find any case has been made out for interference in the impugned order. In result, the order of the District Forum is up held. The appeal stands dismissed.

(paras 6 and 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 06.02.2017 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 expired in a road accident. It is also admitted that as an investor he was covered under the 'accidental death claim' policy.

The short limited point in this revision petition is whether the liability to pay the complainant i.e. the wife-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-wife-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-wife-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 2008. The complaint was filed before the District Forum in 2008. 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 11 years have elapsed from the death of the deceased-investor-insured.

We fail to understand as to why the complainant-wife-nominee of the deceased-investor-insured has to wait, further, even after 11 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-wife-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-wife-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-wife-nominee of the deceased-investor-insured has to, now, after 11 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 her.

We fail to readily understand what prevents the petitioner company to settle the amount due to the wife-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 wife-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-wife-nominee through 'payee's a/c only' demand draft directly in her 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. No one is present for the insurance company. Only 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.