JEEVAN BIMA SAHAYOG ASSET MANAGEMENT CO. LTD. vs REKHA TRIPATHI

R.P. No. 1200 of 2002 : This Revision Petition arises out of the order of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, U.P., which in turn affirmed the order of the District Forum. The facts in brief which lead the complainant to approach the District Forum are as under.

THE complainants had purchased 1000 units of Dhanvarsha, a Scheme floated by the opposite party, with maturity date as 17.10.1998 and the maturity amount Rs. 25,000/-. THE complainants had not received the matured value of these units till 1.8.1998. On enquiry, the opposite party No. 1 informed them that the units were matured on 1.8.1998 and warrants worth Rs. 25,100/- were sent under registered post on 13.8.1998 to the complainants. THE opposite party later on informed the complainants that the warrants had already been withdrawn fraudulently from the Branch of the Bank of Baroda of the Allahabad Branch. When all their efforts to get the matured amount from the opposite parties could not fructify, they approached the District Forum claiming that they be paid Rs. 25,100/- from the opposite parties with interest at the rate of 25 percent p.a. on the amount of Rs. 25,100/- with costs of Rs. 20,000/- for mental agony and costs of the case. The opposite party No. 1 in its version maintained that as a normal practice they sent the warrants under registered post in time and hence no deficiency in service had been committed by them. The opposite party No. 2, took the stand that the postal department''s liability in case of wrong delivery is limited to Rs. 100/- only as they were not aware what is kept inside the envelops. The opposite party No. 3, the Bank had maintained that they had taken all the steps that are to be taken as per law, while opening the account in their branch and no deficiency in service could be attributable to them. Upon hearing both the parties and perusing the papers placed before the District Forum, the District Forum held that the complainants were not consumers of the opposite party Nos. 2 and 3 i.e. the Postal Department and the Bank. The District Forum also observed that they were of the opinion that the opposite party No. 1 was responsible and liable to get the amount of the complainants paid to them, for which they could adopt any mode of despatch and among these, opposite party No. 2 was one mode and if the opposite party No. 1 was of the opinion that the opposite party Nos. 2 and 3 were together under a criminal conspiracy had made available the amounts to some other persons instead of paying the amount to the complainants which amount was due and payable to the complainants, then the opposite party No. 1 could initiate legal proceedings in the competent Court against them for this criminal act and negligence. In view of the above observations, the District Forum allowed the complaints by directing the opposite party No. 1 to pay to the complainants of their matured value of the units with interest at the rate of 15 percent p.a. from 17.10.1998 till the date of payment with costs of Rs. 3,000/- to each of the complainants.

Feeling aggrieved by the order of the District Forum, the opposite party No. 1 went in appeal to the State Commission. The State Commission in its detailed order, dismissed the appeals with costs and affirmed the order of the District Forum. Now the opposite party No. 1 is in revision before us.

WE have heard Mr. Joy Basu, learned Counsel for the petitioner. WE have also gone through the detailed orders of the Fora below. The only plea raised before us is that the Postal Authorities were acting as the agent of the respondent No. 1 i.e.. petitioner before us, and the Counsel for the petitioner has drawn our attention to Condition No. 14 of the General Instructions issued by LIC Mutual Funds which reads as under : "Refund of application money : Where an application is rejected in full or in part, money received will accordingly be refunded to the sole/first applicant by cheque payable at Bombay. No interest will be paid on the amount so refunded. Letter of regret together with the refund cheque, if any, will be despatched by post at the applicant''s sole risk."

This clearly shows that it is only in the case when application is rejected in full or in part and the application money received has to be refunded to the applicant. There the applicant is agreeing that the refund cheque will be despatched by post at the applicant''s sole risk. This is not the refund of the application money, but remittance of the proceeds. Therefore, that clause has no effect. This Commission has already held that unless a contract to the contrary is proved the remitter is liable in such cases. Apart from the above clause no other contract has been cited before us. If the amount is paid by the petitioner, it will be for them to take up the matter with respondent no. 2 for the reimbursement. The consumer must not be deprived of his money on account of such technicalities. In view of what is observed above, this revision petition is dismissed, as we find no illegality or jurisdictional error in the orders of the State Commission or the District Forum in exercise of our revisional jurisdiction under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Revision Petition No. 1201 of 2002 : This revision petition is dismissed in terms of the order passed in Revision Petition No. 1200 of 2002. Revision Petitions dismissed.