Heard learned counsel for the appellant. None appears for the respondent.

2.      Here is an appeal filed u/s 15 of the erstwhile Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter called the ‘Act’). Parties to this appeal shall be referred to with reference to their respective status before the District Forum.

3.   The unfolded story of the case of the complainant is that the complaint has purchased LIC “Jeevan Astha” policy from the OP  for assured sum of Rs.1,50,000/- and deposited a sum of Rs.26,545/- on 21.1.2009 which was matured on 21.1.2014. Complainant found that after maturity Rs.36,350/- was  paid in his account whereas he was supposed to get Rs.38,125/- Complainant thereafter contacted the LIC official but no  response was received for which she filed the complaint.

4.      OP filed written version stating that the complainant has purchased “Jeevan Astha” policy with assured sum of Rs.1,50,000/- for a period of 5 years. They submitted that after maturity complainant has paid Rs.36,350/- towards maturity value including Rs.25,000/- guarantee with  guaranteed addition Rs.11,250/- and loyalty Rs.100/- They submitted that the complainant based his case on leaflet. Leaflet was not binding on the OP because the agent introduced the leaflet. There is no deficiency of service on their part.

5.      After hearing both parties, learned District Forum has passed the following impugned order:-

                             “xxx   xxx   xxx

            OP will pay a sum of Rs.1775/- to the complainant towards less amount paid as loyalty addition OP  will also pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- to the complainant towards mental agony an harassment and a further sum of Rs.2500/- towards cost of litigation. Thus the OP will pay a sum of Rs.14,275/- (Rupees fourteen thousand two hundred seventy five only) to the complainant in total. The above payments shall be made within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of the order, failing which the complainant is at liberty to take shelter of this Hon‘ble Forum as per C.P.Act, 1986.”

6.      Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the learned District Forum has committed error in law by relying upon the agent of LIC who has distributed the leaflet. He submitted that the agent of the LIC cannot be trusted as distribution of leaflet was not entrusted by LIC on their agents. So he submitted to set aside the impugned order by allowing the appeal.

7.      Considered the submission of learned counsel for the appellant and perused the DFR including the impugned order.

8.      The complainant is required to prove the deficiency of service on the part of the OP.

9.      Admittedly, the complainant has purchased LIC policy covering sum of Rs.1,50,000/- for the period of five years. It is also not in dispute that said policy was matured on 21.1.2014 and Rs.36,350/- was credited to the account of the complainant. But the complainant is required to prove how the  maturity value would be Rs.38,125/-. He only relies on the leaflet. It is well settled in law that the leaflet cannot be taken as  admissible evidence in absence of any witness examined to support the same. Therefore, the leaflet cannot be taken as conclusive evidence to support the case of the complainant. This Commission is of the view that the learned District Forum without applying judicial mind has passed the impugned order .Therefore, this Commission do not agree with the finding of the learned District Forum and accordingly set aside the impugned order and the appeal stands allowed. No cost.

        DFR be sent back forthwith.

      Supply free copy of this order to the respective parties or the copy of this order be downloaded from Confonet or Website of this Commission to treat same as copy supplied from this Commission.