Complaint is filed on 06-06-2009
Compliant disposed on 10-02-2010
BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM::AT:: K A R I M N A G A R
PRESENT: HON’BLE SRI K. DEVI PRASAD, B.Sc., LL.B., PRESIDENT AND
HON’BLE SMT. E. LAXMI, M.A.LL.M.,PGDCA (CONSUMER AWARENESS), MEMBER
WEDNESDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY,
TWO THOUSAND TEN
CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO. 94 OF 2009
Between:
Banda Laxminarayana, S/o. Veeraiah, Age 77 years, Occ: Nil, R/o. H.No.2-2-21, Boiwada locality of Karimnagar city.
… Complainant.
AND
- The Divisional Manager, LIC of India, Divisional Office, Karimnagr.
- The Divisional Manager, LIC of India, Divisional Office, Hyderabad.
…Opposite Parties
This complaint is coming up before us for final hearing on 27-01-2010, in the presence of Sri T.Venugopal, Advocate for complainant and Sri P. Ashok, Advocate for opposite party no.1 and 2, and on perusing the material papers on record, and having stood over for consideration till this day, the Forum passed the following:
::ORDER::
1. This complaint is filed under section 12 of C.P. Act. 1986 seeking direction to the opposite parties to pay a sum of Rs.25,830/- with interest @ 2% per month and Rs.20,000/- towards damages and costs.
2. The averments of the complaint are that he had obtained the policy no.45863338 Dt: 27.3.1979 with opposite party no.2 for a sum of Rs.60,000/- by paying an amount of Rs.2,583/- commenced from 27.3.1979 to 27.02.1994. The complainant had paid 10 installments premium for a period of 5 years but he had only seven receipts remaining were misplaced beyond recovery. The complainant being a senior citizen approached the opposite parties several times for the payment of the amount paid by him. But the opposite parties did not pay the amount. Finally on 28.01.2009 the complainant got issued Legal Notice to the opposite parties. In reply notice the opposite parties stated that they did not have any record of policy. The negligent attitude of opposite parties is nothing but deficiency of service. Hence, prayed to allow the complaint.
3. The opposite party no.1 & 2 filed their counter denying the averments made in the complaint and stated that the complaint is filed after the limitation under Section 24 A (1) of Consumer Protection Act as the cause of action arose on 27.3.1994. Further admitting the issuance of insurance policy by the opposite party no.2 and contented that the complainant paid Hly premium under the above policy upto and including March 1981 only and subsequent premiums were not paid by him. The same was paid by him on 5.8.1981 i.e., after the expiry of grace period.
4. As per the policy condition no.2 “A policy will lapse if premium is not paid within the grace period’. In the above case the grace period is 30 days. The complainant paid premium on 27.3.1981 on 5.8.1981 and thereafter no subsequent premiums were paid by him. Hence the policy is in totally lapsed condition without acquiring any paid up value or surrender value. There is no delay or deficiency on the part of opposite parties. Hence, prayed to dismiss the complaint with costs.
5. The complainant has filed his Proof Affidavit reiterating the averments made in the complaint and filed documents which are marked as Ex.A1 to A17. Ex.A1 is the Reply Notice Dt: 29.1.2009 from opposite parties addressed to counsel for complainant. Ex.A2 & A4 are the Legal Notices Dt: 28.1.2009 & Dt: 5.2.2009 issued on behalf of complainant addressed to opposite parties. Ex.A3 is two postal receipts addressed to opposite parties. Ex.A5 is the Rejoinder Notice from counsel for complainant Dt: 16.3.2009 addressed to Revenue Divisional Officer, Karimnagar for non-receipt of order copy. Ex.A6 to A9 are the postal receipts addressed to opposite parties. Ex.A10 is the letter Dt: 16.3.2009 from counsel for complainant addressed to opposite parties about sending the required documents. Ex.A11 is the repudiation letter Dt: 18.4.2009 addressed to counsel for complainant. Ex.A12 to A16 are receipts issued by opposite parties in the name of complainant for a sum of Rs.2583/-. Ex.A17 is the original Policy Bond in the name of complainant for a sum of Rs.60,000/- issued by opposite parties.
6. On behalf of opposite party no.1 & 2 the Administrative Officer has filed his affidavit and filed the documents which are marked as Ex.B1 to B4. Ex.B1 is the copy of letter Dt: 8.11.1994 issued by opposite party no.1. Ex.B2 is the copy of letter Dt: 29.1.2009 addressed to counsel for complainant. Ex.B3 is the copy of letter Dt: 18.4.2009 addressed to counsel for complainant. Ex.B4 is the copy of enlarged version of Policy Conditions No.2,4 & 5.
7. The point for consideration is whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties, if so, to what relief the complainant is entitled?
8. The contention of the learned counsel for the complainant is that the complainant had paid 10 installments premium for a period of 5 years. But he has filed seven receipts only since the remaining receipts were misplaced beyond recovery. The complainant had obtained policy with the assuring sum Rs.60,000/- by paying premium of Rs.2,583/- half yearly and the policy period commenced from 27.3.1979 to 27.2.1994. The complainant several times roamed around the office of opposite parties for payment of the amount and due to the failure to pay the amount by the opposite parties the complainant got issued legal notice demanding the payment of the amount. Inspite of that the opposite parties did not pay the amount. Thus there is deficiency of service by the opposite parties. Therefore, the learned counsel requested this Forum to direct the opposite parties to pay the amount of Rs.25,830/- along with interest 2% per month from the date of receipt of the amount till the date of payment and Rs.20,000/- towards compensation and damages.
9. The learned counsel for the opposite parties contended firstly this complaint ought not to have registered since there is delay of more than 14 years since the year of maturity in filing this complaint and the complainant did not file any petition to condone the delay. Secondly as per the condition no.4 of the policy the non-failure of compliance of the regulations the policy holder is not entitled for return of the amount paid by him. To get the return of the mount the complainant should have paid premiums for atleast 3 years. But as per the two receipts filed by the complainant he has paid only two half yearly premiums, one is Dt: 27.9.1980 and the second is 27.3.1981. Issue of Legal Notice will not save the limitation as stipulated in the statue. In the reply notice Ex.B3 the opposite parties have informed to send Xerox copy of the receipts if any to take further action. Therefore, the claim is not within limitation. Hence the same may be rejected.
10. The complainant obtained the policy on 27.3.1979 commenced from 29.3.1979 to 27.2.1994. The same is clear through Ex.A17 Insurance Policy bond. As stated above the complainant filed this complaint demanding repayment of Rs.25,830/- with interest at 2% and Rs.20,000/- towards compensation and damages. The complainant though pleaded that he has paid 10 installments premium for the period of five years, he did not file the receipts to show that he has paid 10 installments. But he had filed Ex.A12 receipt Dt: 27.10.1979 and receipt Dt: 5.8.1981 vide Ex.A15. Even in the reply notice issued by the opposite parties in Ex.B3 the opposite parties have asked the complainant to send the details of receipts subsequent to the month of 3/81 or Xerox copies of receipts so as to take further action. Ofcourse in Ex.B3 instead of 8/81 the opposite parties have mentioned 3/81 which may be a typographical mistake. Instead of receipt of this reply notice no receipts as Ex.A12 and Ex.A15 have been filed by the complainant. The complainant’s oral contention is that he lost receipts. But as per the contention of the opposite parties, only two premiums have been paid by the complainant. Thus it is clear that the complainant even could not give any details of the premiums paid by him after 8/81.
11. In the conditions and privilege of the policy that have been filed by the opposite parties for the reference to show how the payments or premiums have to be made by the policy holder, the condition no.4 says that “if after atleast 3 full years premium have been paid any receipt of the policy any subsequent premium be not duly paid, this policy shall not be wholly void. But the sum assured by it shall be reduced to such a sum as shall bear the same ratio to the full sum assured as the number of premiums actually paid- - - - -“. Thus as per the receipts filed by the complainant he did not pay the premium for three years as provided in the condition no.4. In case the non-failure of payment of premiums for three years the amount paid would be forfeited. Thus in the absence of any documentary evidence showing the payment of premiums by the complainant for three years, he is not entitled for refund of any amount.
12. The second contention of the opposite parties is that this complaint ought not to have registered since there is a delay of more than 14 years since the date of maturity mentioned in the bond and the complainant did not file any petition to condone the delay in filing the said complaint with delay of more than 14 years. It is also clear from the notice issued by the complainant Ex.A2 that the complainant till 2009 did not take any steps claiming the amount as claimed in this complaint. For the first time through Ex.A2, the opposite parties were informed about the payment of 10 installment premiums for a period of five years, but failed to furnish the receipts or details of the receipts for those five years.
13. An opportunity was provided to the policy holder/complainant to furnish the details or Xerox copies of receipts to enable the opposite parties to verify whether the complainant had paid premiums for three years or more than three years to take further action in the matter. The complainant failed to furnish any receipt or details to the opposite parties. Thus the complainant cannot now say that there is deficiency in service.
14. Therefore, on the above said two grounds i.e., violation of condition no.4 and also the delay in filing this complaint more than 14 years from the date of maturity of the bond period, the complainant cannot now contend that there is deficiency in service. Hence, we hold, that the complainant is not entitled for the relief sought in the complaint. Therefore, the complaint deserves to be dismissed without costs.
15. In the result the complaint is dismissed. No order for costs.
Dictated to Stenographer and transcribed by her after correction the orders pronounced by us in the open court this the 10th day of February, 2010.
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
NO ORAL EVIDENCE HAS BEEN ADDUCED ON EITHER SIDE
FOR COMPLAINANT:
Ex.A1 is the Reply Notice Dt: 29.1.2009 from opposite parties addressed to counsel for complainant.
Ex.A2 & A4 are the Legal Notices Dt: 28.1.2009 & Dt: 5.2.2009 issued on behalf of complainant addressed to opposite parties.
Ex.A3 is two postal receipts addressed to opposite parties.
Ex.A5 is the Rejoinder Notice from counsel for complainant Dt: 16.3.2009 addressed to Revenue Divisional Officer, Karimnagar.
Ex.A6 to A9 are the postal receipts addressed to opposite parties.
Ex.A10 is the letter Dt: 16.3.2009 from counsel for complainant addressed to opposite parties.
Ex.A11 is the repudiation letter Dt: 18.4.2009 addressed to counsel for complainant.
Ex.A12 to A16 are receipts issued by opposite parties in the name of complainant for a sum of Rs.2583/-.
Ex.A17 is the original Policy Bond in the name of complainant for a sum of Rs.60,000/- issued by opposite parties.
FOR OPPOSITE PARTIES:
Ex.B1 is the copy of letter Dt: 8.11.1994 issued by opposite party no.1.
Ex.B2 is the copy of letter Dt: 29.1.2009 addressed to counsel for complainant.
Ex.B3 is the copy of letter Dt: 18.4.2009 addressed to counsel for complainant.
Ex.B4 is the copy of enlarged version of Policy Conditions No.2,4 & 5.
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
