SAHARA INDIA LIMITED vs MRITUNJAY NATH TRIPATHI

THIS is an appeal against the judgment and order dated 20.8.1992 passed by District Consumer Forum, Deoria in Complaint Case No. 135/1992.

THE facts of the case stated in brief are that the complainant''s mother died on 28.10.1988. She was the subscriber of Golden Scheme having Account No. 22561 with Sahara India. According to the Golden Scheme rules the age of the subscriber should be 45 years but should not be more than 50 years. She had deposited a sum of Rs. 2,500/- and the National Savings Certificate was to be taken which was done by the complainant''s mother. According to the terms if a sum of Rs. 2,500/- was not deposited in one lumpsum then the same was to be deposited in eight monthly instalments. THE complainant''s mother deposited the entire amount through the agent of Sahara India. It was also provided under the rules that if the account holder of the scheme died, then the amount of Rs. 5,000/- will be given as a death help. THE nominee of the complainant''s mother was the complainant. THE complainant informed the local branch of the appellant and also produced all the papers. He was told that the Surveyor will visit the place for enquiry. When the Surveyor did not come for a period of six months, the complainant again contacted the appellant but even then no Surveyor went there for about 10 months. THE last reminder was issued to the Branch Manager of the appellant but nothing has been done. THE complainant has filed the complaint for recovery of Rs. 50,000/- alongwith interest at the rate of 36% per annum from 24.10.1988 till the date of payment. The opposite party in its written version has alleged that there is an agreement between the parties that if any dispute arises between them then an Arbitrator is to be appointed. No other averments were made by the appellant in their written statement.

The complainant led evidence in support of their respective contentions before the learned District Forum, who after considering the case of the parties, came to the conclusion that there was deficiency in service on behalf of the opposite party, hence it directed the appellant/opposite party to pay a sum of Rs. 50,000/- within a period of 15 days and if the same is not paid then the interest at the rate of 3% per annum shall be payable from the date of death till the date of payment.

AGGRIEVED against this order, the appellant has come in appeal and has challenged the correctness of the order passed by the learned District Forum. Learned Counsel for the appellant was heard. None was present from the side of the opposite party inspite of service of notice.

THE learned Counsel for the appellant has argued that in view of the provisions of the agreement entered into between the parties, the dispute should be referred to the arbitration. This contention of the learned Counsel for the appellant is not correct. A provision of Section 3 of the Consumer Protection Act says that the provisions of this Act shall be in addition to and not in derogation of the provisions of any other law. This means the complainant has an additional remedy under the Consumer Protection Act. It is the choice of the complainant either to go for arbitration or to file a complaint under this Act. THE choice lies with the complainant and it cannot be restricted by the action of the opposite party. THE opposite party cannot compel the complainant to adopt the procedure of arbitration as mentioned in the agreement. Thus, in view of the provisions of Section 3 of the Consumer Protection Act, this complaint is maintainable by the District Consumer Forum. According to the terms of the agreement if an account holder dies, then a sum of Rs. 50,000/- has to be paid either in lumpsum or in instalments of Rs. 1,000/- for a period of 60 months. The holder of the account has to nominate in the present case as to which mode is to be applied. It is further provided that this assistance will be free from interest and the repayment will be done in 15 years time but the repayment will not start within the period of five years. The learned District Forum has considered in detail the various provisions of the Scheme and has come to the conclusion that the account holder has died and the complainant is nominee of the account holder. As the facts have not been controverted by the appellant, Sahara India, hence the facts which have been alleged by the complainant in the complaint are to be believed. The learned District Forum has, therefore, not committed any mistake in coming to the conclusion that the Sahara India Limited, appellant is liable to pay a sum of Rs. 50,000/- alongwith interest. The judgment and order of the learned District Forum requires no interference. The appeal is, therefore, liable to be dismissed. ORDER The appeal is dismissed. The judgment and order of the learned District Forum are confirmed. Let copy of this order be made available to the parties as per rules. Appeal dismissed.