DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BARNALA, PUNJAB.
Complaint Case No : 539/2016
Date of Institution : 24.05.2016
Date of Decision : 09.02.2018
1. Purnima Shukla wife of Late Sh. Raju Shukla son of Sh. Surinder Shukla.
2. Rama Shukla wife of Surinder Shukla.
Residents of Prem Nagar, Dhanaula Road, Barnala, Tehsil and District Barnala (Punjab).
…Complainants
Versus
The Managing Director, Trident Limited Home Textile Division, Village Dhaula, Tehsil and District Barnala (Punjab).
…Opposite Party
Complaint Under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act.
Present: Sh. K.R. Goyal counsel for the complainants.
Sh. Rahul Gupta counsel for opposite party.
Quorum.-
1. Shri Sukhpal Singh Gill : President
2. Ms. Vandna Sidhu : Member
ORDER
(MS. VANDNA SIDHU MEMBER)
As per complaint No. 539/2016 the complainants Purnima Shukla and Rama Shukla complainants filed the present complaint on the grounds that husband and son of complainants namely Sh. Raju Shukla was employed with the opposite party and he had died on 9.11.2013 and his salary code was R-25291. The following amounts has been credited in the account of Raju Shuka after his death.-
1) Gratuity LIC Rs. 1,47,115.00
2) Group Term Insurance-SBI Life Rs. 5,00,000.00
3) Group Term Insurance-PNB Metlife Rs. 5,00,000.00
4) ICICI Lombard Rs. 12,00,000.00
Total Rs. 23,47,115.00
2. It is further submitted that the above noted amount of Rs. 23,47,115/- had been deposited with opposite party as per letter dated 17.1.2014 which was sent by opposite party. The complainant and her children Sharuti Shukla and Sidhant Shukla and Rama Devi-Mother of the deceased were legal heirs of the deceased as per Succession Certificate. The opposite party was liable to pay the claim immediately after the death of Sh. Raju Shukla to all the above mentioned legal heirs. Vide letter dated 17.1.2014 the opposite party asked for certain documents and succession certificate. It is pointed out that opposite party was liable to keep the above noted amount in fix deposit but opposite party failed to do so. The opposite party has paid only the principal amount but opposite party has not paid any interest on the said amount. It is further submitted that the opposite party had wrongly compelled the complainant and her family to arrange succession certificate while it was not required at all because succession of the deceased was not disputed in any manner whatsoever as such opposite party is liable to pay the expenses of the succession certificate being Rs. 1,00,000/- alongwith compensation of Rs. 50,000/- for harassment.
3. The complainant visited the office of the opposite party at Dhaula many times but employees of the opposite party have been putting off the matter on one pretext or the other. The said act and conduct of the opposite parties caused mental tension, agony and harassment to the complainant and deficiency in service is well proved.
Relief.-
1) The opposite parties may be directed to pay interest from 17.1.2014 to 26.3.2016 at the rate of 12% per annum on amount of Rs. 23,47,115/-.
2) To pay Rs. 1,00,000/- as expenses incurred on succession certificate.
3) To pay Rs. 50,000/- as compensation for mental agony and harassment.
4) To pay litigation expenses of Rs. 10,000/-.
5) To pay Rs. 2,000/- as cost of legal notice.
6) Any other relief which this Forum deems fit.
4. Upon notice of this complaint the opposite party filed written version taking preliminary objections on the grounds that the complaint is not maintainable as there is no relationship of consumer between the complainant and the opposite party. The complainants have already received cheques No. 503352 to 503354 all dated 26.3.2016 each for Rs. 5,86,779/- from the opposite party vide duly issued receipts and the said amount has been got encashed by the complainants. The complainants received the said amount as full and final settlement of their claim with a specific acknowledgment that no other amount remained pending with the opposite party. Upon receiving the said amount all rights, titles or interests of the complainant in the due amount in question stood satisfied, so complainants are now estopped by the act and conduct from claiming the interest on the said amount and also estopped from filing the present complaint. Further, the complainants have not come to this Forum with clean hands and have suppressed the material facts of receiving the said amounts as full and final satisfaction of their claim.
5. On merits, it is submitted that there is no relationship of consumer between the parties. It is further submitted that the amount of Rs. 23,47,116/- has already been paid to the complainants by the opposite party vide cheques dated 26.3.2016. It is further submitted that no where in letter dated 17.1.2014 it is mentioned that the amount of Rs. 23,47,115/- had been deposited with the opposite party. The copy of emails attached with the complaint does not speak of any such deposits as has been claimed. The said documents are not authenticated by any officer of the opposite party so there genuineness is not admitted.
6. It is further submitted that upon death of an employee the claim regarding the dues is submitted by the person entitled to the claim and the claim is filed and processed by the officials of the opposite party to avoid the payment of dues to any wrongful persons. In the case of the claim in hand, there were discrepancies regarding the name of the wife, mother and children of the deceased in the documents submitted as the same were not supplied and got updated in his service record by the deceased employee during his life time. So, the complainants were required to get and furnish the succession certificate in respect of the death claim amount of the deceased. The complainants had been submitting the required claim/certificates of succession which bore number of material discrepancies on account of which the complainants had been advised to get the said discrepancies rectified to avoid any payment to unauthorized persons. It was only after many such rectifications got carried out by the complainants from the concerned court finally the claim was settled. So, the complainants were responsible for causing the delay in settling the claim by supplying incorrect and discrepant documents required for settling the claim. It is further submitted that ultimately complainants received cheques No. 503352 to 503354 dated 26.3.2016 each for Rs. 5,86,779/- from the opposite party and said amount has been got encashed by the complainants. The opposite party has never harassed the complainants rather as responsible employer the officials of the opposite party dealt with the case in proper discharge of their duties taking every precaution that any unauthorized person may not get the benefit illegally as earlier there had been cases involving the company by different contenders/heirs due to their interse disputes of inheritance which the company is unnecessarily facing in various courts of law. The notice of the complainants was duly replied by the opposite party through their counsel. So, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. It is further submitted that the complaint is not covered under the Consumer Protection Act 1986 and Consumer Protection Rules framed thereunder. Rather, the cause if any be taken under the provisions of Workmen Compensation Act or the Contract Act and other Civil Laws applicable to the subject. It is further submitted that this Forum has got no jurisdiction to try and entertain the present claim. The complainants are not entitled to claim any amount from the opposite party. Lastly they prayed that the complaint of complainant may kindly be dismissed.
7. In order to prove their case, the complainants have tendered in evidence affidavit of complainant Rama Shukla Ex.C-1, copy of letter dated 17.1.2014 Ex.C-2, copy of death certificate of Raju Shukla Ex.C-3, copy of legal notice Ex.C-4, postal receipt Ex.C-5 and closed the evidence.
8. To rebut the case of the complainants, the opposite party tendered in evidence affidavit of Sanjeev Sharma Ex.OP-1, copy of receipt issued by Purnima Shukla Ex.OP-2, copy of photograph Ex.OP-3, copy of receipt issued by Rama Devi Ex.OP-4, copy of photograph Ex.OP-5, certified copy of order dated 21.8.2015 passed by Additional Civil Judge, Sr. Division, Barnala Ex.OP-6 and Ex.OP-7, certified copy of order dated 24.12.2015 passed by Additional Civil Judge, Sr. Division, Barnala Ex.OP-8, certified copy of order dated 28.1.2016 passed by Additional Civil Judge Sr. Division, Barnala Ex.OP-9, attested copy of personal file of Raju Shukla Ex.OP-10, attested copy of application by Purnima for disbursement of claim of Raju Shukla Ex.OP-11, attested copy of reply dated 24.5.2016 Ex.OP-12, attested copy of the certificate of incorporation consequent upon change of name issued by Deputy Registrar of Company/s containing certificate of incorporation and commencement of business Ex.OP-13, authority letter Ex.OP-14, extract board meeting Ex.OP-15 and closed the evidence.
9. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record on the file. Written arguments also filed by both the parties.
10. After perusing the entire record complainants Purnima Shukla wife of late Sh. Raju Shukla and Rama Shukla wife of Surinder Shukla have filed the present complaint that husband and son of complainants namely Sh. Raju Shukla was employed with the opposite party and expired on 9.11.2013 and his salary code was R-25291. The amount of Rs. 23,47,115/- had been deposited with the opposite party as per letter dated 17.1.2014 which was sent by opposite party i.e. Ex.C-2 in regard of arrangement of succession certificate to disbursement the claim amount to legal heirs but in this letter no amount of Rs. 23,47,115/- has been mentioned by opposite party. This Ex.C-2 is also for additional documents for the settlement of the case of Raju Shukla. As per preliminary submissions complainants have already received cheque No. 503352 to 503354 all dated 26.3.2016 each for Rs. 5,86,779/- and as per Ex.OP-1 also Authorized Representative of opposite party deposed in his affidavit that complainant No. 1 has already received cheque No. 503352 to 503354 and these cheques were dated 26.3.2016 each for Rs. 5,86,779/- from the opposite party against proper receipts executed by her towards the insurance claim and gratuity amount of her husband late Raju Shukla as her individual share and Rs. 5,86,779/- each share of her both minor children namely Shruti Shukla and Sidhant Shukla as their natural guardian. The above said cheques have already been got encashed by the complainant. Copy of receipt is also filed by the opposite party i.e. Ex.OP-2 in which it is specifically mentioned that the amount received by Purnima Shukla complainant No. 1 is full and final amount and no other amount is pending. After perusing the entire record Ex.OP-4 which was brought on record by the opposite party proved that Rama Devi mother of deceased also received amount of Rs. 5,86,778/- vide cheque No. 503355 dated 26.3.2016 and just like Ex.OP-2 in Ex.OP-4 complainant No. 2 also give specific acknowledgment that she received above said amount as full and final settlement of claim. Further, it is also mentioned on merits that there were discrepancies regarding the name of wife, mother and children of the deceased in the documents submitted as the same were not supplied and got updated in the service of deceased record by the deceased employee during his lifetime. As per Ex.C-2 opposite party demanded succession certificate to disbursement the claim amount to legal heirs.
11. On merits it is submitted by the opposite party that there is no relationship of consumer between the parties. This Forum has a view that deceased was an employee of above said opposite party and as per complaint and Ex.C-1 he was insured with Group Term Insurance SBI Life, Group Term Insurance PNB Metlife and ICICI Lombard but complainants did not made party any of them. In the present complaint here is fault of non joinder of necessary parties. Opposite party has also submitted on merits that the complaint is not covered under Consumer Protection Act and this Forum has no jurisdiction to try and entertain the present complaint. Ex.C-2 sent to complainant on 17.1.2014 and complainant got Ex.OP-9 i.e. succession certificate after rectifications from the concerned court and finally the claim was settled and complainants received full and final payment. Furthermore, it is also submitted by the opposite party that in regard of delay for settling the claim was due to complainants and opposite party was not responsible for giving above mentioned amount after receiving succession certificate and completing other formalities by the complainants. Ex.OP-12 is the reply of legal notice of complainants i.e. Ex.C-4 in which full and final settlement of the claim amount was already paid to the complainants was specifically mentioned.
12. It is pertinent to mention here that husband and son of complainants was an employee of a Trident Limited and he was not consumer as per Section 2 (1) (d) of Consumer Protection Act, of the opposite party so this is the reason that the present complaint does not fall under the Consumer Protection Act and the present complaint is not maintainable. The above said complainants should go to appropriate court for seeking relief against the opposite party.
13. In case titled Avon Automobiles Versus National Insurance Company Ltd. and another reported in III (2012) CPJ-281 (NC) the Hon'ble National Commission, New Delhi held as under.-
“Consumer Protection Act, 1986- Sections 2(1)(g), 14(1) (d), 21(b)-Insurance -Fire accident due to sparking of electricity wires- Stocks damaged-Discharge voucher executed against claim-Coercive bargaining and undue influence alleged-District Forum allowed complaint-State Commission allowed appeal-Hence revision-Discharge voucher though signed as 'full and final' may not be treated as final if the consumer can satisfy Court that it was obtained through undue influence, fraud or misrepresentation- There is nothing on record to show that petitioner was compelled by respondents at any stage to settle claim at lesser amount than the claim made by her- Discharge voucher does not depict that same was obtained by respondents from petitioner under coercion or duress- Petitioner wants to repudiate discharge voucher duly signed by her after enjoying the money for more than nine years-This clearly shows mala fide intention on part of petitioner in filing these complaints-Costs @ Rs. 10,000 awarded.”
This Forum also keen to above stated citation because as per record and arguments complainants received claim amount according to Ex.OP-2 and Ex.OP-4 without any fear and compulsion or without any undue influence and nobody misrepresent the complainants at the time of putting their signatures on Ex.OP-2 and Ex.OP-4 as to receive the claim as “full and final settlement”. Furthermore, complainants did not receive the claim under protest according to Ex.OP-2 and Ex.OP-4.
14. In view of the above discussion, present complaint is dismissed. However, no order as to costs or compensation. Copy of the order be supplied to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the records.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN FORUM:
9th Day of February 2018
(Sukhpal Singh Gill)
President
(Vandna Sidhu) Member
