- (1.) THIS is an appeal under s. 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (No. 68 of 1986) ("the Act" herein) against the order dated 28. 3. 89 passed by the District Forum. , Udaipur by which it directed that the opposite party-appellant should refund Rs. 1456/- deposited by complainant-respondent alongwith interest @ 12 % p. a. from 21-3-88 until realization. It was ordered that the opposite party-appellant should make payment within one month. A sum of Rs. 250/- was also ordered to be paid by the opposite party-appellant to the complainant-respondent as compensation and costs of the complaint.
(2.) THE complainant-respondent filed a complaint before the District Forum, Udaipur praying amongst others that he had purchased one Life Insurance Certificate from the opposite party-appellant bearing No. 105/001 for which he was required to deposit Rs. 52/- per month for 60 months. THE complainant-respondent, however, deposited 28 instalments only by depositing Rs. 52/- every month. He however, failed to deposit the remaining instalments in time. THE complainant failed to deposit 12 instalments month by month. After 12 instalments became due, he went there to deposit. THE opposite party-appellant refused to deposit the amount and told him that if Head Office permits, then amount will be deposited. However, the Head Office refused to accept the amount. He was told that 28 instalments of Rs. 52/- each (total Rs. 1456/-) deposited by him also cannot be refunded. It was prayed that if the remaining instalments are not accepted, then amount of Rs. 1456/- should be ordered to be refunded with interest and bonus. This complaint was presented on Nov. 3, 1988. It was ordered to be registered and the next date fixed was 17. 11. 88. The opposite party-appellant filed its version of the case contesting the complaint. In support of that an affidavit was also filed. The complainant filed a rejoinder dated 12-12-88 reiterating the averments made in the complaint. It was submitted by the opposite-party that the complainant had purchased the Welfare Endowment Certificate under the Social Welfare Scheme and not the Life Insurance Certificate. The Welfare Endowment Certificate lapsed and it was not revived under cl. 5 of the Social Welfare Scheme. The complainant is not entitled to the refund of Rs. 1456/ -. No evidence was produced by the parties except their own affidavits. The District Forum heard the arguments and came to the conclusion that the complainant is entitled to Rs. 1456/- with interest @ Rs. 12% p. a. from 21-3-88 until realization and Rs. 251/-as compensation and costs. Hence this appeal. Notice of the appeal was sent to the complainant-respondent. The complainant-respondent refused to accept the notice. The service was taken as sufficient. We have heard Mr. Virendra Lodha, in support the appeal. It was contended by Mr. Virendra Lodha that the District Forum had made a wrong approach to the case while passing the order under appeal. He submitted that the complainant-respondent had purchased a Welfare Endowment Certificate under the Social Welfare Scheme and as the complainant failed to deposit instalments of Rs. 52/- every month after he had deposited 28 instalments, the Certificate stood lapsed and as the complainant-respondent did not get it revived any time before the date of maturity, in accordance with clause 5 of the Social Welfare Scheme, the amount of 28 instalments paid by the complainant-respondent cannot be refunded. Clause 5 deals with revival of discontinued/lapsed certificate. Clause 5 (a) is as follows : - " (a) Ordinary Revival : When the instalment is not paid within the days of grace, the certificate stands lapsed, but may be revived any time before the late of maturity on payment of arrear dues together with interest @ 1-1/2 paise per rupee per month to be compounded every six months, subject to a minimum sum of 50 paise, or it may be transferred to another person as per clause 13 below. " Clause 5 (b) deals with Special Revival Scheme. The complainant-respondent had come with a case that he had de- posited 28 instalments of Rs. 52/- per month but failed to deposit subsequent 12 monthly instalments. The complainant-respondent had purchased the Welfare Endowment Certificate on March 20, 1983 and was required to deposit instalment of Rs. 52/- every month for a period of 5 years. On account of defaults in the payment of monthly instalments in due time the certificate stood lapsed. The certificate could be revived in accordance with cl. 5 (a) of the Social. Welfare Scheme. The certificate was to mature on March 20, 1988. Thus he was required to deposit the last instalment in February 1988. After depositing 28 instalments, he failed to deposit the instalments month by month. The certificate was to mature on March 20, 1988. However, he did not take any steps for the revival of the certificate before the date of maturity. The. complaint was filed on Nov. 3, 1988 i. e. 7-1/2 months after the date of maturity. In terms of the clauses governing Welfare Endowment Certificate under the Social Welfare Scheme, if the complainant had failed to take any steps for revival of the lapsed certificate before its maturity, he is not entitled to the refund of the instalments which he had already deposited. The District Forum has referred to clause 8 which deals with Paid-Up Certificate. Clause 8 (a) is not attracted which the District Forum has adverted. The conditions laid therein are not fulfilled. Clause 8 (b) lays down that a Paid-Up Certificate can also be revived to the full maturity value at any time before the date of maturity on payment of all arrears of instalments with interest of 1- paise per rupee per month to be compounded every six months. The District Forum was not right in invoking clause 8. The complainant did not apply for the revival of the lapsed Certificate before its maturity to the opposite party-appellant. The approach made by the District Forum in this regard is erroneous. The complainant is responsible for the lapse of the Certificate. Further, he did not take any steps for revival of the Certificate to its full maturity value before the maturity in accordance with clause 5 (a ). In these circumstances, no order for the refund of Rs. 1456'/-and interest, compensation and costs amounting to Rs. 251/- could be passed. The order of the District Forum, Udaipur has to be set aside.
(3.) CONSEQUENTLY, we allow the appeal and set aside the order dated March 28, 1989 of the District Forum, Udaipur passed in Complaint Case No. 9/bhu/88 and dismiss the complaint filed by the complainant-respondent. As nobody has appeared to oppose the appeal on behalf of the complainant-respondent, the appellant will bear his own costs. Order pronounced on June 2, 1989. . ;