Andhra Pradesh

Nellore

CC/19/2015

Parlapalli Rajendra Prasad Reddy - Complainant(s)

Versus

1.The Branch Manager LIC of India - Opp.Party(s)

P.Ramadandu

30 Aug 2017

ORDER

Date of Filing     :10-03-2015

                                                                             Date of Disposal:30-08-2017

 

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM:NELLORE

Wednesday, this the   30^th   day of   AUGUST, 2017

 

          Present: Sri Sk.Mohd.Ismail, M.A., LL.B., President

                         Sri K. Umamaheswara Rao, M.A., B.L., Member

 

C.C.No.19/2015

 

Parlapalli Rajendra Prasad Reddy,

S/o.Raghurami Reddy, Hindu, Business,

Aged 42 years,  R/o.16-3-73, Ramalingapuram,

Nellore-3.                                                                                   ..… Complainant       

                                                             Vs.

 

1.	The Branch Manager, LIC of India, Atmakur, SPSR Nellore District.
2.	The Branch Manager, Nellore City Branch-1, LIC  of India, Dargamitta, Nellore-3.
3.	The Senior Divisional Manager, LIC of India, Dargamitta, Nellore-3.                                   ..…Opposite parties

                                                             .   

          This complaint coming on 28-08-2017 before us for hearing in the presence of Sri P. Ramadandu, advocate for the complainant and                                                               Sri D.V.R. Kiran Kumar, advocate for the opposite parties  and having stood over for consideration till this day and this Forum made the following:

 

ORDER

                       (ORDER BY  Sri.Sk.MOHD.ISMAIL, PRESIDENT)

 

The complainant filed this complaint under Section-12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 to  direct the opposite parties to settle the claim of the complainant and pay an amount of Rs.9,02,488/- due under the policy 840667327 and for damages and costs of the complaint.

          2.       The brief averments of the complaint are as follows that:- the complainant had taken the  insurance policy No.840667327 from the LIC of India, Atmakur Branch, for the sum assured Rs.5,00,000/- with annual premium of Rs.28,206/-.  The  table and term of the policy is 112-12.  The  date of commencement of the policy was 28-08-1997  and date of maturity  28-08-2009.  Accordingly the above said   terms and conditions were mentioned in the bond and the same was issued to the  complainant. The policy was  later transferred  from Atmakur  branch to Nellore City Branch-1.  The complainant had regularly paid the 12 years premium instalments and the last instalment was paid on                                    28-08-2008.

                       The complainant submits that the said policy was matured on                  28-08-2009 as per the  terms  of the policy bond.  After maturity, the complainant has been  requesting the 2^nd opposite party to settle the claim and to pay the sum assured under the policy.  The 2^nd opposite party has been postponing the settlement of the claim  and hence the complainant wrote a letter dated 24-11-2014  to the 2^nd opposite party requesting him to settle the claim of him under the above said policy.  The opposite party No.2 received the notice and sent a reply                   dated 01-12-2014   stating that the  policy would be matured after 25 years  of taking of it and that the term of the policy is wrongly mentioned in the bond as   12 years instead of  25 years.  The plea of the 2^nd opposite party that the policy would be matured after 25 years is totally incorrect.  It is clearly  and categorically mentioned in the  first page of the policy bond that the  term of the policy is for 12 years.  The  complainant had agreed to take the policy as it was told to him at the time  of  taking the policy that the term of the policy is for 12 years and it would be matured on 28-08-2009.  Accordingly the term of the policy as 112-12 (12 years) and the date of maturity as  28-08-2009 is mentioned in the policy bond.

                 It is further submitted that the 2^nd opposite party is legally bound to settle  the claim of the complainant under the above said policy after 12  years  as per the policy bond with the maturity date  as 28-08-2009  and also liable to pay the same to the complainant with the benefits and interest at 10% p.a. from the date of maturity  28-08-2009 till the date of payment.

                  It is further submitted that the complainant has taken a loan of Rs.5,64,500/-  on  12-12-2014  from the 2^nd opposite party, on the policy amount due to him.  Subsequently the complainant again  wrote a registered letter dated 30-01-2015 to the 2^nd opposite party requesting him to settle his claim and pay the balance of the amount  due under the policy. But opposite party No.2  has failed to comply with the same and  sent a  copy of the alleged proposal form newly adding  the term as 112-25  in the another column not meant for  it.  In that form also  in the relevant column meant for the table and term 112-12 are mentioned.  It clearly shows that the policy was taken under the term 112-12.  Hence the complainant is constrained to file this complaint.

 

The amount payable  to the complainant under the policy:          Rs.           Ps.

Sum assured . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5,00,000.00

Guaranteed Bonus at Rs.37,500/- per year X  12 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4,50,000.00

Loyalty        ……………………………………………………….…...3,400.00

                                      Total: …………………………………….9,53,400.00

Interest there on at 10% p.a. from 28-08-2009 to

    till the date of  filing of complaint i.e., 09-03-2015……………5,27,230.00

                                      Total:…………………………………… 14,80,630.00

Deduct the loan amount taken on 12-12-2014         ……5,64,500.00

Interest on it at 10% p.a. from 12-12-2014 to 09-03-2015:13,642.00

          Total amount……………………………………5,78,142.00..5,78,142-00

         Balance of the amount due ……………………………………. 9,02,488.00

 

          The opposite parties are charging interest at 10% p.a. on the loan amount taken by the complainant and the complainant has also claimed the same rate of interest at 10% p.a. on the amount due to him and submits  to  allow  the complaint by directing   the opposite parties 1 to 3 for payment of amount of Rs.9,02,488/- due under the policy bearing No.840667327 and to award damages and costs of the complaint and submits to allow the complaint with costs.

 

          3.       The opposite party No.3 filed written version and the opposite parties 1  and 2 filed  memo  adopting  written version filed  on behalf  of opposite party No.3   with the following averments that:  the  opposite party No.1 issued  policy  DOC 28/08/1997 for a SAA of Rs.5,00,000/-  under plan 112 and later the policy was transferred  to Nellore branch -1  for the servicing in April, 2004.  The opposite parties submits that the proposal was given by the proposer at the time of  taking policy, the column was shown as 112-12 and 112-25 (12) i.e., the policy term  is 25 years  and the premium paid term is  12 years and also the date of maturity was  mistakenly  shown as  28-08-2009 instead of 28-08-2022 and it is  typographical error took place while  printing the said policy, which was issued to the complainant  and  taking advantage of the typographical error, the complainant claiming the maturity  amount and in the policy  is 25 years but not 12 years.  The opposite parties 1 to 3 submits that  the opposite party No.2 clarifying the complainant  that  policy was issued with  long term i.e., 12 years instead of  25 years  and hence the policy matures  after completion of 25 years only but not              12 years and 12 years is only premium paying term only.  The opposite party submits that the  plan 112 i.e., Jeevan  Shree without profits  is available with   terms 5, 10, 15, 20, 25  years only  and the premium paying term  is  different   from policy term under the policy  25 years term,  the  premium paying term   can be chosen by the proposer  is 1,2,3,4,6,8,10,12  and  16 years. Whereas in the present case, the proposer has selected    12 years paying  term.  Accordingly premium was  calculated  and collected for 25 years term  that  premium  paying term is 12 years and the complainant had also availed loan on  12-12-2014  and that time   also paying term is taken as 112-25 (12) only and loan was paid accordingly.  The opposite parties submits that while printing the policy bond, an error took place in respect of   term of policy instead of showing the  policy term  and the premium paying  term  was  25 years and 12 years respectively, only  premium paying term was shown by mistake in  term column i.e., 12 years.  The opposite parties submit  that the premium was actually calculated and collected for 25 years  policy term and 12 years   premium paying  term and the policy matures   for payment on  28-08-2009  as stated above  and the  payment will be made on 28-08-2022, hence the complaint filed by the complainant against  the opposite parties 1 to 3 is not maintainable as there is no deficiency of service and  submits   for the dismissal of the complaint with costs.

          4.       On behalf of complainant P.W.1 was examined and Exs.A1 to A6 were marked. 

5.       On behalf of  opposite parties, R.Ws.1 to 3 were examined and Exs.B1 to B4 were marked.

6.       The complainant was examined as P.W.1, the opposite party No.1 was examined as R.W.1, opposite  party No.2 was examined as R.W.2 and R.W.3 was examined as R.W.3.

Ex.A1 is photocopy of policy, Ex.A2 is receipts,  Ex.A3 is notice, Ex.A4 is reply notice dated 01-12-2014, Ex.A5 is   notice dated  30^th January, 2015, Ex.A6  is letter dated 11-02-2015,  Ex.B1 is photocopy of  proposal form,  Ex.B2 is copy of policy and Ex.B3 is reply notice and Ex.B4 is premium calculation sheet.

7.       On behalf of  both parties written arguments filed. Perused the written arguments.

8.       Arguments on behalf of  learned counsels  for both parties heard.

9.       Now the points for consideration are:

1. Whether   there is any deficiency of service by the opposite parties 1 to 3 towards  the complainant?
2. To what relief the complainant is entitled?

 

         10.     POINT No.1:The learned  counsel for complainant submits by relying upon  the evidence of  P.W.1  and Exs.A1 to A6 that the complainant has taken Jeevan Shree policy on 28-08-1997 and after paying the instalment amounts, the policy was matured on  28-08-2009  and inspite of  maturity of the policy, the opposite parties  1 to 3  failed to pay the  balance of Ex.A1 policy amount after deduction of the loan amount borrowed from the opposite  parties 1 to 3 on                12-12-2014 and inspite of issuing of legal notice to the opposite parties 1 to 3 as opposite parties 1 to 3 failed to pay the balance of due amount after deduction of loan amount,  the complainant filed this  complaint against  the opposite parties 1 to 3  for payment amount of Rs.9,02,488/- due under the Ex.A1 policy  and submits to allow the  complaint by  awarding  damages of Rs.50,000/- and costs    and submits to allow the complaint with costs.

                On the other hand, the learned counsel for the opposite parties 1 to 3 submits  by  relying upon  a decision reported in 

LIC of India and another Vs.  Pandit  Gopal Katkade   delivered  in F.A.No.399/2007, decided on 14-01-2008 delivered by Hon’ble  Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Mumbai

          and by  relying upon  Exs.B1 and B2  that premium paying term is 12 years and policy term is 25 years  and  wrongly it is noted as 112-12 instead of                  112-25(12) and taking advantage of the typing mistakes, the complainant is not entitled for the  relief prayed    in the complaint and further as the complainant himself availed a loan from the opposite parties  on 12-12-2014,  he submits that the complaint filed by the complainant for the payment of the balance amount after deduction of the loan amount is not maintainable and submits for dismissal  of the complaint against the opposite parties  1 to 3 with costs.

          .         In view of the `arguments submitted by the learned counsels for both parties and  as seen from the  contention of the complainant is that as the premium payment amount is  112-12 and policy term is also 112-12.  The complainant submits to  allow the complaint by directing the opposite parties 1 to 3 for payment of the balance of  amount under Ex.A1.

                     On the other hand, the contention of the opposite parties 1 to 3 is that  the premium paying term is 12 years and policy term is 25 years and hence though  premium paying term is completed   as the policy term is for 25 years.   The opposite parties 1 to 3   submits that the complainant is not entitled for the balance of amount  till the  completion of the policy term of 25 years.

                    In view of the above said facts and as seen from the contention of the opposite parties, the main contention of the opposite parties 1 to 3 is that due to type mistake, the payment term is  noted as 112-12 instead of 112-25.  The payment term for   Jeevan Shree Without Profit   (Without Accident Benefit) is 25 years and in view of the  contention of the opposite parties 1 to 3 as there was type mistake of 112-12, the complainant cannot be permitted to take the advantage of the  type mistake.  Jeevan Shree  Without Profit policy is a policy in which option was given to the policy holder for payment of the premium amount and the payment of the amount is after 25 years only. 

In   Bihar school Education Board Vs. Suresh Prasad Sinha reported in 2009 (8) SCC 483.

                 Wherein   the Hon’ble Apex court held that when the opposite parties 1 to 3  are discharging its statutory functions, there is no  service provider. 

In   Amar Nath  Basheshar Vs. Tek Chand reported in AIR 1972 S.C. 1548

                 Wherein   the Hon’ble   Apex Court held as follows that Although Courts are not concerned with the  policy of the legislature  or with the result of  giving  effect to the language of the  statute, it is their duty to ascertain the  meaning  and   intendment  of  the legislature.  In doing so,   Courts will always presume that the impugned provision was designed to effectuate a particular object or  to meet a particular requirement  and not that  it was intended to negative that much, it sought to  achieve.

                   By relying upon the above decisions as the opposite party policy is            25 years.  This Forum cannot give direction to pay the amount to the complainant as the period of the policy was not expired.

In LIC of India and another Vs.  Pandit  Gopal Katkade   delivered  in F.A.No.399/2007, decided on 14-01-2008 delivered by Hon’ble  Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Mumbai.  The Hon’ble  State Commission held that  typing mistake cannot be taken into consideration.

                By relying upon the above decision as there was  type mistake in the policy  about the premium payment  as 112-12  and policy term.  We are of the opinion that the complainant cannot  be permitted to take advantage of the type mistake in Ex.A1 policy.

 

               11.             By relying upon the above decisions, we are of the opinion that  as Jeevan Shree policy premium  paid term  as different from policy term and as there is typographical mistake and in view of the availing of loan by the  complainant on   12-12-2014, we are of the opinion that the complainant cannot be  permitted to take advantage of the type mistake.  By  relying upon the above  decisions and the facts of the  complaint, we are of the opinion that there is  no deficiency of service by the opposite parties 1 to 3 in non paying  of  amount   due under Ex.A1 as the policy term is 25 years and hence the complaint filed by the complainant against the opposite parties 1 to 3 is not maintainable.  By relying upon the above decisions  and   discussion, we answered  this point against the complainant and in favour of the opposite  parties 1 to 3.

 

          12.     POINT NO.2: In view of our answering on point No.1 against the complainant and in favour of the opposite parties 1 to 3, we are of the opinion that the complaint filed by the complainant against the opposite parties 1 to 3  has to be dismissed.

                     In the result, the complaint is dismissed but in the circumstances no costs.

 

            Dictated to Stenographer, transcribed by her corrected  and pronounced by us in the open  Forum, this the  30^th day of  AUGUST, 2017.

 

               Sd/-                                                                                                 Sd/-

      MEMBER                                                                         PRESIDENT

 

 

                                                APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

 

Witnesses Examined for the complainant

 

P.W.1  -

24-08-2015

Sri Parlapalli Rajendra Prasad Reddy, S/o.Raghurami Reddy Nellore-3. (Affidavit filed)

 

Witnesses Examined for the opposite parties

R.W.1  -	28-09-2015	Sri S. Raghunath, S/o.S. Sreerama Sarma, Working as A.O. Nellore. (Affidavit filed)
R.W.2  -	28-09-2015	Sri S. Raghunath, S/o.S. Sreerama Sarma, Working as A.O. Nellore. (Affidavit filed)
R.W.3  -	28-09-2015	Sri S. Raghunath, S/o.S. Sreerama Sarma, Working as A.O. Nellore. (Affidavit filed)

 

                             EXHIBITS MARKED FOR THE COMPLAINANT

Ex.A1  -	08-07-1998	Photostat copy of  Jeevan Shree Without Profit (Without Accident Benefit )  policy No.840667327, 28-08-1997 in favour of  complainant issued by the opposite party.
Ex.A2  -		Two yearly  premium receipts  dated 26-09-2006 and                11-10-2008.
Ex.A3  -		Photostat copy of letter from complainant to the  opposite party No.2 alongwith registered post receipt.
Ex.A4  -	01-12-2014	Letter from opposite party to the complainant.
Ex.A5  -	30-01-2015	Letter from complainant to the opposite party alongwith registered post receipt.
Ex.A6  -	11-02-2015	Letter from opposite party to the complainant.

 

                         EXHIBITS MARKED FOR THE OPPOSITE PARTIES

Ex.B1  -	09-03-1998	Attested copy of  proposal for insurance on own life  in favour of  complainant issued by the opposite party.
Ex.B2  -	08-07-1998	Attested copy of  Jeevan Shree Without Profit (Without Accident Benefit )  policy No.840667327, 28-08-1997 in favour of  complainant issued by the opposite party.
Ex.B3  -		Attested copy of letters dated 01-12-2014, 17-12-2014 and 11-02-2015  from opposite party to the complainant,
Ex.B4  -		Premium Calculation Sheet in policy No.840667327.

 

                                                                                                                                Id/-

                                                                                                                     PRESIDENT

Copies to:

1.	Sri P. Ramadandu, Advocate, Aravinda Nagar, Nellore-3.
2.	Sri D.V.R. Kiran Kumar, Advocate, D.No.25-9-336, Z.P.Colony, A.K.Nagar, Nellore-524 004.

Date when free copy was issued: