Balbir Kumar complainant has filed the present complaint against the titled opposite parties U/S 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter for short, the C.P.Act.) in which he has prayed that the opposite parties be directed to refund the amount alongwith interest and to pay Rs.10,000/- on account of deficiency in service and Rs.10,000/- for mental agony. Opposite party be further directed to pay Rs.2,000/- for filing of complaint alongwith Rs.5,000/- as litigation expenses to him, in the interest of justice.
2. The case of the complainant in brief is that he purchased a policy bearing No.473383710 dated 31.3.2012 from the opposite party no.1 and deposited the first premium Rs.10,000/-. The date of maturity of the policy was 31.3.2017. The sum was assured Rs.1,00,000/-. Mode of payment annually plan and terms 805 proposal form No.14420. He paid the second premium of Rs.10,000/- i.e. total amount of Rs.20,000/- has been paid by him to the opposite party no.3 who is under the control of the opposite party no.1 & 2. He has further pleaded that opposite party no.3 with malafide intention did not deposit the said amount with the concerning authority. Hence he has been defrauded. Then he asked the opposite party no.3 to repay the premium paid in cash. The opposite party no.3 promised him in writing duly attested by an affidavit vide Notary Register Sr.No.387 dated 1.3.2014 for returning the amount upto 20.5.2015. In failure the opposite party no.3 will pay the double amount of Rs.40,000/- to him and also admitted that failing which legal proceedings may be performed. This act and conduct of the opposite party no.3 is of malafide intention. He requested the opposite party many times either to repay the amount or continue LIC but the opposite party no.3 did not pay any heed towards his requests. A legal notice dated 19.7.2014 was sent to the opposite parties by registered A.D. post but it did not bother to reply the notice. The opposite party did not continue his policy as premiums was grabbed by the opposite party no.3. All the acts of the opposite party amounts to fraud, deficient of service, untrade and unfair practice. Hence this complaint.
3. Upon notice the opposite parties appeared and filed their separate written replies through their counsels. Opposite party no.1 & 2 in their joint written reply taking the preliminary objections that Sh.Balbir Kumar complainant purchased an insurance policy bearing No.473383710 for a sum assured Rs.1,00,000/-, Table Term: 805-05-05 with Date of Commencement 31.3.2012 from Branch Office, Gurdaspur. The premiums were to be paid upto March, 2016 only. But the complainant paid only one installment of Rs.10,000/- of the premium at the time of purchasing the policy, hence the policy does not acquire any surrender or maturity value. The policy premiums are not paid by the policy holder hence, the present complaint is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed on this score only. On merits, it was admitted that the complainant has purchased the policy bearing No.473383710 dated 31.3.2012 from the opposite party no.1 and deposited the first premium for Rs.10,000/-. It was also admitted that the maturity date of the policy is 31.3.2017 and assured sum is Rs.1,00,000/- with the mode of payment annually under the plan and terms 805-05. It was denied that the complainant paid the second premium amounting to Rs.10,000/- to the opposite party. It is submitted that the opposite party no.3 is not authorized to collect the renewal/subsequent premium from the complainant. If the complainant had paid any premium under the policy in question to the opposite party no.3, the opposite party is not liable for that as the agent of the Corporation is not authorized to collect the renewal/subsequent premium from the policy holder on behalf of the Life Insurance Corporation of India. Other averments made in the complaint have been denied. Lastly, the complaint has been prayed to be dismissed with costs.
4. Opposite party no.3 in its reply taking the preliminary objections that the present complaint is not maintainable; the complainant has not come to this Ld.Forum with clean hands and has suppressed material facts from this Ld.Forum and this Ld.Forum has got no jurisdiction to try this complaint as the complainant has pleaded that the opposite party has committed fraud with the complainant which is not come within the preview of this Ld.Forum. The complainant has to approach the Civil Court to decide the matter; hence this complaint is liable to be dismissed. On merits, all averments made in the complaint have been denied and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
5. Counsel for the complainant tendered into evidence affidavit of complainant Ex.C1, alongwith other documents Ex.C2 to Ex.C8 and closed the evidence.
6. Sh.Yogender Singh Sisodia, Manager (Legal), L.I.C. of India tendered into evidence his own affidavit Ex.OP1,2/1 alongwith other document Ex.OP1,2/2 and closed the evidence.
7. We have carefully gone through the pleadings of the parties; arguments advanced by their respective counsels and have also appreciated the evidence produced on record with the valuable assistance of the learned counsels for the purpose of adjudication of the present complaint.
8. From the pleadings and evidence on record it is an admitted fact of both the parties that complainant purchased policy bearing No.473383710 dated 31.3.2012 from the opposite party no.1 and deposited the first premium of Rs.10,000/-. The sum assured was Rs.1,00,000/- and its maturity will be on 31.3.2017. The case of the complainant is that he paid the second premium amounting to Rs.10,000/- to the opposite party no.3 who is the agent of opposite party no.1 for depositing the same in his policy account. The opposite party no.3 did not deposit the said 2nd premium amount with the concerned authority which act of the opposite party no.3 amounts to deficiency in service. The opposite party no.3 has even admitted his fault and promised in writing by way of duly attested affidavit dated 1.3.2014 vide Ex.C7 to return the amount upto 20.5.2014. In this way, he has sought main relief against the opposite party no.3 only.
9. On the other hand, the opposite party no.1 and 2 denied their liability for the wrongs if any committed by their agent as the agent of the corporation is not authorized to collect the renewal/subsequent premium from the policy holders on behalf of the L.I.C. The opposite party no.3 against whom the present complainant has leveled certain allegation of having indulged in unfair trade practice and deficiency in service appeared and filed written statement which is totally non-speaking document. No plea has been taken to prove his innocence and rather at later stage opposite party no.3 decided to remain absent from the proceedings and was proceeded against ex-parte and as such have impliedly admitted the specific allegations against him. The affidavit Ex.C7 is on the record and is not denied by the opposite party no.3 and as such we find that there is merit in the complaint and deficiency in service on the part of opposite party no.3. We find that the complainant paid only one installment and even policy has not acquired any surrender value for no fault on the part of complainant as such we direct the opposite party no.3 to refund Rs.20,000/- to the complainant besides payment of Rs.3,000/- as compensation and Rs.2000/- as litigation charges within 30 days from receipt of copy of order failing which the aggregate amount shall attract interest of 9% P.A.
10. Copy of the order be communicated to the parties free of charges. File is ordered to be consigned to the record room.
(Naveen Puri)
President.
ANNOUNCED: (Jagdeep Kaur)
March 27,2015. Member.
*MK*
