DISTRICT SOCIAL WELFARE OFFICER Vs. KRISHNA DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition filed under sec. 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short, the 'Act') assails the order of the State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission, Haryana, Panchkula (in short, 'State Commission') in First Appeal No. 811 of 2013 dtd. 21/3/2014 arising out of order dtd. 3/9/2013 in complaint no. 68 of 2012 of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Rewari (in short, 'District Forum').

(2.) The facts of the case lie in a narrow compass. The State Government of Haryana through its Department of Social Justice and Empowerment had, on 19/11/2009, notified a scheme called Rajeev Gandhi Pariwar Beema Yojana (RGPBY) based on an insurance contract with respondent no.2 for the period 28/3/2008 to 27/3/2009 to provide compensation of Rs.1,00,000.00 for persons in the age group 18 to 60 years in case of death or permanent disability. The scheme was notified in continuation of notification dtd. 29/4/2007 and was effective from 1/4/2006. The husband of respondent no.1, Late Shri Mohan, died by suicide on 12/7/2007. As her claim for compensation under the scheme was not approved, she filed a complaint before the District Forum seeking compensation of Rs.1,00,000.00 from respondent no. 2 and petitioners 1 and 2 under the RGPBY. The District Forum in its order dtd. 3/9/2013 in CC 68 of 2012 allowed the complaint and directed payment of Rs.1,00,000.00 with interest at 9% from the date of filing of the complaint within one month, failing which interest at 12% till realization. In appeal filed by respondent no. 2, the State Commission set aside the District Forum's order on the ground that there was no insurance policy in existence at the time of the death of respondent no. 1's husband thereby making the respondent no. 2/insurance company not liable. The State Commission held the State Government liable to pay the amount of Rs.1,00,000.00 with interest at 9% from filing till date of payment. This order has been impugned before us by the State Government through the District Social Welfare Officer, Rewari.

(3.) The grounds of appeal are that the State Commission has erred in shifting the burden of payment on the State Government without adjudicating the maintainability of the proceedings before the Forum. It is contended that the respondent is not a 'consumer' under sec. 2(1) of the Act as there is no privity of contract. It is argued that merely because there was no insurance policy in place, liability could not be fastened upon petitioner no. 2. A welfare scheme of the State cannot make beneficiaries 'consumers' under the Act. As such the lower fora acted without jurisdiction without appreciating the provisions of the Act relating to 'complaint', 'complainant' and 'consumer dispute'. Consequently, the impugned order is illegal and bad in law and liable to be set aside.