(1.) These four revision petitions have been filed under section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the order dated 14.10.2014, passed by the Rajasthan State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (hereinafter referred to as 'the State Commission') in First Appeal Nos. 848/2013 to 851/2013, vide which, while dismissing the appeals, the orders dated 25.07.2013, passed by the District Forum Ajmer, in the consumer complaints, filed by the present respondents/complainants, allowing the said complaints, were upheld.
(2.) In the consumer complaints, it was stated by the complainants that their mother Smt. Pushplata Mangal during her life time, had opened accounts in Sahara IV Scheme and obtained various policies. At the time of opening the account, she was in good health, but later on it was diagnosed that she was suffering from breast cancer. The mother of the complainants died on 17.08.2006. The complainants filed the consumer complaints in question, seeking payment of various benefits under the accounts opened by her mother under the Sahara IV Scheme. In their reply to the complaints, the Petitioners/OPs stated that according to the terms and conditions mentioned in the agreement/contract between the parties, the issue involved in the dispute, i.e., the liability of death help was referred to an Arbitrator and the said Arbitrator had finally disposed of the dispute vide his Award on 07.09.2008. The proceedings of the consumer complaints were, therefore, barred on the principle of res judicata . The District Forum after considering the averments of the parties, passed their orders on 25.07.2013, allowing the complaints and directing them to pay the amounts under Sahara IV Scheme to the complainants. Being aggrieved against the said orders of the District Forum, the petitioners/OPs challenged the same by way of appeals before the State Commission and the said appeals having been dismissed vide order dated 14.10.2014, the petitioners/OPs are before this Commission by way of the present revision petitions.
(3.) The notice of the revision petitions was duly sent to the complainants/respondents in all the cases. However, they did not put in appearance despite service and hence were ordered proceeded against ex-parte.