15-12-2014 - The reasons for delay in disposal of this appeal can be seen from the order sheet.
Mr.Sachin Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that this appeal was filed within time from the date of receipt of the copy of the order.
2. Mr. Sachin Kumar, assailed the impugned judgement on the ground that the premium of Rs. 3,489/- for 2007 was not received/ credited in the account of appellant/ LIC and therefore the policy lapsed. He further submitted that the learned Lower Forum granted the relief beyond the prayer made in the complaint.
3. On the other hand, Mr. P. R. Khatri, learned counsel appearing for the Respondent/ complainant submitted that the complainant was justified in believing that the said premium was credited in the account of LIC as the said amount was debited in his passbook on 25.9.2007. He further submitted that the LIC accepted the premium for the next year i.e. 2008 but when the complainant went to deposit the premium of 2009 it was informed that due to non receipt of the premium for the year 2007, the premium received for the year 2008 has been kept in suspense account and the Policy has lapsed. Thereafter, the complainant wrote letter dated 4.9.2009 for regularizing the policy, on receipt of the premiums without imposing any penalty. Again reminder dated 4.10.2010 was sent. But LIC did not respond and therefore the present complaint case was filed on 30.3.2010.
4. During the hearing, the following order was passed on 11.11.2014.
- During the hearing, the following position emerged.
- According to the appellant-L.I.C, it did not receive Rs.3,547/- said to have been paid by the respondent- complainant- Smt. Anita Agrawal by Cheque No. 803375 dated 28.8.2007 against premium of 2007, whereas according to the complainant, as per the Passbook the said amount was debited in the account of complainant on 25.9.2007.
- Mr. Sachin Kumar, appearing for L.I.C. produced a letter dated 31.1.2011 sent by the Bank of L.I.C. i.e. United Bank of India, Mandar Branch, Ranchi, to the effect that the said cheque was sent to State Bank of India, Patori Branch on 14.9.2007 for collection against which a D.D. was sent by S.B.I., Patori Branch which was sent to the Ranchi Branch of United Bank of India for collection but the D.D. was returned back to United Bank of India due to some discrepancy in the D.D. Then the said D.D. was returned back to S.B.I. Patori for further correction. It is further said in the letter that inspite of reminder, the payment of the said cheque has not been received from S.B.I. Patori and thus no credit has been given in the account of L.I.C. till the date of the said letter.
- Mr. Uma Shankar Agrawal, husband of Smt. Anita Agrawal present in the court, submitted that if the said amount was not credited in the account of L.I.C., the same has not been returned/ credited in the account of the complainant also till date.
- Instead of making the said Bankers as the party respondents in this case for the present, in our opinion, it will be better if both the Bankers try to find out the correct position and issue certificates to the parties to that effect about the said transaction.
- In the circumstances, the Branch Manager, State Bank of India, Patori, District- Samastipur and the Branch Manager, United Bank of India, Mandar Branch, Ranchi are directed to verify the records and issue letters to L.I.C. and Anita Agrawal as to what happened to the amount of the cheque deposited by her, within two weeks from the date of receipt of this order.
- This order will be communicated by Mr. Sachin Kumar appearing for the appellant and Mr. Pawan Ranjan Khatri, appearing for the complainant to their respective bankers within two weeks.
5. When the matter was taken up today, no clear cut information has been received from the State Bank of India, Patori Branch, and Untied Bank of India, Mandar Branch, as to what happened to the said premium amount deposited by complainant far back on 25.9.2007. If the said amount was not credited in the account of LIC, it is not understood as to why it has not been credited back in the account of complainant inspite of lapse of so many years. It prima faice appears that the said banks or one of them is responsible for such lapses. But the said Banks are not the parties in this case. Now making them parties will further delay the disposal of this old case
Therefore, it is expected from the said banks that they will ensure that the said amount of Rs. 3,489/- is credited back either in the account of the complainant or in the account of LIC within 4 weeks from the receipt of a copy of this order by the banks, failing which the complainant will be entitled to file a separate case against the said banks for payment of the said amount along with interest at the prevailing rate for the fixed deposits from 25.9.2007 till the date of payment, and also for damages for harassment, litigation costs etc.
Mr. Sachin Kumar informed that the premium of 2007 has not been credited in the account of the LIC till date. If the said premium for 2007 is credited in the account of LIC, by the said banks, LIC will immediately return it to the complainant.
6. So far as the LIC is concerned, it is true that the said premium for the year 2007 was not credited in it’s account but it is also true that the premium for 2008 was received by LIC and was kept in the suspense account.
7. In the facts and circumstances of this case, this appeal is disposed of with the following order. The complainant will deposit the premiums for the years 2007 and 2009 to 2015 within two months from today. On receipt of such amount, LIC will regularize the policy and provide all the benefits as per the policy conditions within three months from the date of receipt of the said premiums.
8. With these observations and directions this appeal stands disposed off. In view of this order, the impugned order is set aside.
Issue free copy of this order to all concerned for information and needful.
Ranchi,
Dated:-15/12/2014
