Unit Trust of India vs HARI OM PRAKASH SINGLA

THE appeal is by Unit Trust of India challenging order of District Forum, Sangrur dated March 17, 1998 passed on the complaint filed by Hari Om Parkash Singla. A direction was given to the Unit Trust of India to pay a sum of Rs. 30,000/-, the amount of personal accident policy with interest @ 12% per annum from the date, it became due till payment alongwith compensation-cum-cost of Rs. 1,200/-.

UNDER one of the schemes floated by Unit Trust of India, Manmohan Lal Singla became its member and paid certain amounts. He was also extended the benefit of Janta Personal Accident Insurance Scheme. UNDER that scheme after the death had occurred on account of accident benefit of Rs. 30,000/- in addition was to be paid. Manmohan Lal Singla having died, the appellant Unit Trust of India paid the principal amount due but not sum of Rs. 30,000/- that District Forum, Sangrur was approached by the complainant Hari Om Parkash Singla, the nominee of Manmohan Lal Singla. The claim was contested by the Unit Trust of India as well as the Insurance Company. However, on behalf of the Unit Trust of India subsequently statement was made that they were willing to make the payment on receipt of undertaking from the complainant. On the basis of that statement, ultimately the impugned order was passed by the District Forum on March 17, 1998. The representative of the Unit Trust of India has argued that there was no deficiency in rendering service as on receipt of copy of F.I.R. only claim was to be cleared. Ex. C-15 is a letter of the complainant, vide which copy of the F.I.R. alongwith other relevant copies, copy of postmortem report, etc. were forwarded to the Unit Trust of India. In appeal it is a new stand which is being taken up whereas when statement of M.L. Bansal of Unit Trust of India was recorded by the District Forum on January 13, 1998, the stand taken was that only undertaking was to be taken from the complainant, which was taken and arrangement for payment was to be made. Be that as it may, since F.I.R. had been sent vide letter dated April 24, 1997 to the Unit Trust of India within a reasonable time, it was expected of the Unit Trust of India to make payment of Rs. 30,000/-. Since it was not done, there was deficiency in rendering service and with effect from May 24, 1997, the Unit Trust of India is liable to compensate the complainant by way of interest as has been allowed by the District Forum and not from the date of death of Manmohan Lal Singla. To that extent the order of the District Forum stands modified and we order accordingly. The representative of Unit Trust of India argued that it was discretionary relief which was to be granted and the complainant could not be treated as a consumer. This plea for the first time in the appeal cannot be allowed to be raised as the same is based on facts to be alleged and proved. Before the District Forum no such scheme or contract was produced on the basis of which this question could be determined. Thus he is not permitted to raise this question for the first time in appeal, more so when liability to pay the amount was admitted before the District Forum as per the statement of the representative of the opposite party as stated above. It is further argued that there was no deficiency in rendering service as the Unit Trust of India was to get the insured amount from the Insurance Company and thereafter to make the payment to the complainant. This contention cannot accepted. The contract entered into between Unit Trust of India and the deceased has not been produced to indicate that this was the condition of payment of this benefit that only after getting the money from the Insurance Company it would be paid, rather reverse will also be correct that after making the payment to the complainant, the Unit Trust of India can get it reimbursed from the Insurance Company under the cover of policy taken by the Unit Trust of India. It may be observed that a direction in the present proceedings could also be given straightway to the Insurance Company to make the payment to the complainant as the complainant would be beneficiary of the contract of insurance entered into between the Unit Trust of India and the Insurance Company.

The amount has already been paid though after the decision by the District Forum though orally the time of payment is being disputed. Since in the impugned order direction has been given to pay a sum of Rs. 30,000/-, it is taken that ultimately amount was paid subsequently through cheque had been made on an earlier date i.e. March 11. We find no ground to interfere in the matter of grant of compensation and costs as awarded.

FOR the reasons recorded above, this appeal is partly allowed and the order of the District FORum is modified to the extent that on the amount of Rs. 30,000/-. Unit Trust of India will pay interest @ 12% per annum from May 24, 1997 till payment and order regarding compensation and costs as awarded by the District FORum are affirmed. Appeal partly allowed.