PUSHPADEVI SOMANI vs INDORE CLOTH MARKET CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD

THE appellant is the. widow of one Asharfilal Somani who was a member of the respondent-Indore Cloth Market Cooperative Bank Ltd. Indore, a Cooperative Banking Society. Asharfilal died on 31.7.88. THE appellant as the Legal Representative of said Shri Asharfilal claimed that she was entitled to an amount of Rs. 20,000/- payable under a scheme entitled ''Family Welfare Scheme'' adopted by the respondent-Bank w.e.f 1.7.88. When the respondent did not pay the amount, the appellant filed a complaint before District Forum, Indore.

IN reply to the notice sent by the Forum the respondent-Bank took a stand that the scheme came into existence, on 2nd October, 1988 and as late Asharfilal Somani was not alive, on that date his LRs could not be given benefit of the scheme. The District Forum held that late Asharfilal was covered by the scheme but did not grant relief on the ground that according to the scheme the claim had not been lodged within six months and therefore, the. complainant was not entitled to any relief. Aggrieved by the order, the original complainant has now come up in appeal before us. We have heard both the parties and have, persued the record. It is difficult to agree, with the conclusion drawn by the Forum that the scheme had come into existence on 1.7.88. The conclusion is based on a statement in the annual report of the Bank for the year 1989. In the President''s report on Page 7 of the book-let (NA/3) while, giving report about different activities on the Bank in Para 9 it is stated that from July 1988 a ''Family Welfare Scheme'' for the member has been started. As against this, the respondent-Bank has placed on record a letter dated 13.10.88 whereby the proposal of the Bank to promulgate ''Family Welfare Scheme'' was approved and it was categorically stated that the rules shall come into force from 13.10.1988. In response to this letter, the Bank wrote to the Joint Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Indore on 14.3.89 drawing his attention to the fact that after taking oral approval from the Joint Registrar the Bank had started the scheme from 2nd October, 1988. An ex-post facto approval to the scheme was sought for promulgating the scheme w.e.f. 2.10.1988. In reply to this on 26.4.89 the Joint Registrar permitted the scheme to be promulgated w.e.f. 2.10.88. All this correspondence which clearly shows that the scheme was brought into existance on 2.10.88 does not get washed out by a mention in the President''s report to the members printed in the annual report stating that the ''Family Welfare Scheme'' had been started from July 1988. While preparing the annual report factual mistakes can occur and they can be corrected. The mention in the report about the commencement of the scheme was only by way of information or by way of recounting an achievement of the Bank during the financial year. That can not be a conclusive and authentic proof of the date of commencement of the scheme.

To our mind the confusion - has arisen because originally when the sheme was proposed and a letter seeking approval of the Joint Registrar, Cooperative Societies was sought in the month of February, 1988 (by letter No. 4223 dated 15.2.88 referred to in Joint Registrar''s letter dated 13.10.88) it might have been intended to promulgate the scheme from 1st July, 1988, the financial year of the Bank being from 1st July to the 30th June of the next year. It is for this reason that in the scheme itself the coverage was decided to be given to all the existing members as on 1.7.88 and it was also provided that the financial year of the scheme would be from 1st July to 30th June. The scheme provides that for becoming a member, a member of the Bank will have to apply along with photograph of the nominee. It was also provided in the scheme that while becoming a member of the scheme, a member of the Bank will have to deposit Rs. 300/- in compulsory saving scheme and will also have to deposit a sum of Rs. 33/- as initial money in the assistance account under the scheme. There is nothing on record to show that late Asharfilal ha ever applied for becoming a member of the scheme or had deposited the sum of Rs. 300/- or Rs. 33/- as provided by the scheme. It is therefore clear that in the life time of Shri Asharfilal the scheme had not commenced and when he died on 31.7.88 neither the scheme was operative nor had he become member of the scheme. For these reasons, disagreeing with the view taken by the Forum on this point, we hold that the complainant was not entitled to claim any assistance under the ''Family Welfare Scheme'' as her husband late Asharfilal had not become member of the. scheme and the scheme had also not come into existence prior to his death.

IN view of our aforesaid decision, it is not necessary for us to go into the question of limitation though, we have our own reservations about the correctness of the interpretation of the provision as regards making a demand for the assistance amount by the legal representative of a deceased member within six months of the death. The provision does not appear to us to be mandatory and therefore in our opinion, the Bank can not refuse to accept an otherwise legitimate claim only on the ground of demand having been made beyond time. For the aforesaid reasons we find no force in the appeal and have therefore no alternative but to dismiss it. However, we hope and trust that the respondent-Bank shall endeavour to render such assistance as is possible for it to the appellant who is the widow of an ex-member of the Bank. Appeal dismissed.