Present: Sh. Atul Gupta counsel for the complainant. <br /> Sh. Lakhbinder Singh counsel for opposite party No. 1 and 2.<br /> Sh. M.L. Bansal counsel for opposite party No. 4.<br /> Opposite party No. 3 exparte.<br /> <br /> ORDER<br /> Smt. Usha Rani complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 requiring the opposite parties to pay all the benefits of the policy No. 131902782 alongwith interest @ 24% per annum from the date of consequences till realization of entire amount and to pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation on account of illegal and unauthorized harassment besides Rs.5500/- on account of litigation expenses.<br /> 2. The complainant averred in her complaint that her husband Sh. Megh Raj Sharma had purchased one Jeevan Mitra (Triple Cover Endowment Plan) with profits (with accident benefits) bearing policy No. 131902782 and he had regularly been paying the installments of the aforesaid policy through cheque as well as in cash. On 16.10.2006 a cheque of Rs.3151/- was issued to the opposite party No. 1 by the husband of the complainant out of his bank account No. 55126950305 bearing cheque No. 070043 through opposite party No. 3 which was handed over to the opposite party No. 1. On 3.11.2006 the husband of the complainant i.e. insured expired especially when the policy purchased by him was enforced. The information regarding the death of the husband of the complainant was duly communicated to the opposite party No. 1. The complainant is the legally wedded wife of the deceased Megh Raj Sharma and out of this wedlock two children took birth who are 23 and 22 years of age respectively and are major. Both are self dependent. The complainant was the nominee of the deceased Megh Raj Sharma in the above mentioned policy. On 28.2.2007 a cheque of Rs.1,67,812/- was given to the complainant but all the benefits of Jeevan Mitra Policy were not given to the complainant which she has got right to receive the same. As the complainant was in shackles due to sudden demise of her husband, so it was at the time giving her the cheque of Rs.1,67,812/- by the opposite parties and the opposite party No. 1 to 3 also obtained the signatures of the complainant on various blank papers to which firstly did not agree but as the opposite party No. 1 to 3 assured her that they will disburse all the amount of the policy she in good faith put her signatures. The complainant asked the opposite party No. 1 several times to give all her due benefits accruing out of the Jeevan Mitra Policy but the opposite parties put her off on one pretext or the other. The complainant also went to State Bank of Patiala, Branch at Bargari, where the husband of the complainant was having his account to know about the fate of the cheque which was given by the husband of the complainant but the opposite party No. 4 did not provide her with the requisite information. The complainant sent a registered notice to the opposite parties through her counsel whereby asking them to make payment of all the benefits of the said policy and interest @ 24% per annum within 15 days from the receipt of notice but without any result. The opposite parties have caused illegal and unauthorized harassment to the complainant without any fault on her part and she is under mental tension. So she is entitled to recover Rs.50,000/- as compensation and Rs.5500/- as litigation expenses. Hence this complaint. <br /> 3. The counsel for complainant was heard with regard to admission of the complaint and vide order dated 8.5.2007 complaint was admitted and notice was ordered to be issued to the opposite parties. <br /> 4. On receipt of the notice the opposite party No. 1 and 2 appeared through Sh. Lakhbinder Singh Advocate and filed written reply taking preliminary objections that the complainant does not fall under the definition of Consumer. The complaint is not maintainable in the present form. The complainant has no locus standi to file the present complaint. The complaint is barred by limitation. The matter involved in this complaint is of complicate and intricate nature so this Hon'ble Forum has no jurisdiction to hear and try the present complaint. On merits the opposite party No. 1 and 2 admitted that the husband of the complainant Megh Raj Sharma had purchased one Jeevan Mitra (Triple Cover Endowment Plan) with profits (with accident benefits) bearing policy No. 131902782 but it is wrong that he had regularly been paying the installments of the aforesaid policy. The deceased/life assured did not pay the premium on 28.9.2006 even within a period of grace of one month i.e. up to 28.10.2006, so this policy has been elapsed due to non payment of his premium which was due on 28.9.2006 before the expiry of said Megh Raj who died on 2.11.2006. So the complainant is not entitled for any claim. It is denied that on 16.10.2006 a cheque of Rs.3151/- was issued to the opposite party No. 1 by the husband of the complainant. The opposite party No. 1 never received the alleged cheque at all. The complainant inconnivance with the opposite party No. 3 defraud the opposite party No. 1 illegally and unlawfully. The opposite party No. 3 LIC agent was never authorised to receive the premium on behalf of the LIC. If the amount collected by the general Agent cannot be said to have been received by the LIC. It is admitted that the insured expired on 2.11.2006/3.11.2006 but it is wrong that he died when the policy was enforced. It is admitted that on 28.2.2007 a cheque of Rs.1,67,812/- was given to the complainant. It is wrong that all the benefits of Jeevan Mitra Policy were not given to the complainant. It is further submitted that although the policy was in lapsed condition yet claim was admitted under relaxation clause 'I' as per internal circular of LIC. Due to sympathy claim relation means “If life assured dies within 3 months of First unpaid premium full sum assured, plus bonus subject to deductions of unpaid premiums to complete the policy anniversary payable. The insured expired after the grace period for payment of the premium due but within 3 months of first unpaid premium. The opposite party No. 1 and 2 have made the payment to the complainant/ nominee/wife of the Life assured on ex-gratia basis i.e. on sympathy. An amount of Rs.1,67,812/- vide cheque No. 237093 dated 28.2.2007 had been paid to the complainant and she has given her acknowledgment on form No. 3801 i.e. received fro getting full and final satisfaction of the amount. Now nothing is payable to the nominee under this plan. However the payment has already been made under Chairman Relaxation Clause-I. The complainant signed the acknowledgment on form No. 3801 i.e. receipt for getting full and final satisfaction of the said amount plus bonus voluntarily and willingly after reading and understanding the contents of the said form No. 3801. The said form was not a blank paper and it was duly filed form. The opposite party No. 3 Charanjit Singh is related with the complainant and her co-villager and has connived with the complainant to defraud the opposite party No. 1 and 2 with malafide intention. The answering opposite parties never assured the complainant to make more payment. The complainant is not entitled for any benefits under the said policy. The answering opposite parties have not caused any mental tension or harassment to the complainant rather she is harassing the answering opposite parties by filing this false and baseless complaint. So she is not entitled to any alleged amount on account of illegal and unauthorized harassment and also not entitled for any litigation expenses. The complainant has not come to this Hon'ble Forum with clean hands and concealed the material facts. So the complaint be dismissed with special compensatory costs. <br /> 5. On receipt of the notice the opposite party No. 4 appeared through Sh. M.L. Bansal Advocate and filed written reply taking preliminary objections that the complaint is not maintainable in the present form. The complainant has no locus standi to file the present complaint against the opposite party No. 4 as she is not the consumer of the opposite party No. 4. On merits the opposite party No. 4 submitted that a cheque No. 070043 was presented by Punjab National Bank , Faridkot through collection in the account No. 55126950305 of Sh. Megh Raj Sharma which was returned by the opposite party No. 4 on 16.11.2006 as the account holder has since been died away on 3.11.2006 and as per rules of the bank no amount can be debited or credited to the account of a deceased person as per the banks book of instructions Chapter B-3 (50) Section 21 para No. 21.1 of Bank's book of instructions that notice or knowledge of the death of the constitute precludes the bank from paying further cheques on his account even though the cheques are dated prior to his death. The fact should be noted on the side of the ledger account with the date and the source of information and a line should immediately be drawn below the last entry in the account. It is admitted that Sh. Megah Raj Sharma has died away on 3.11.2006. The complainant never visited State Bank of Patiala, Bargari Branch for any such information. However the opposite party is ready to provide information as per the bank rules. It is admitted that a notice was received by the answering opposite party and the answering opposite party called the complainant and his family member and told them and satisfied them that nothing is to be paid by the bank and if any amount is to be paid i.e. to be by the LIC. The complainant is not entitled to any amount from the answering opposite party as the opposite party No. 4 has never harassed the complainant and has no concern with the answering opposite party. The complainant has no concern with the opposite party No. 4 so the question of request for payment by the complainant to the opposite party No. 4 does not arise at all. So the complaint be dismissed with special costs. <br /> 6. On notice of the Forum the opposite party No. 3 not appeared in the Forum despite notice sent to him through registered cover on 10.5.2007 and vide order dated 26.6.2007 the opposite party No. 3 was proceeded against exparte. <br /> 7. Both the parties wanted to lead evidence to prove their respective pleadings and proper opportunity was given to them. The complainant tendered in evidence her affidavit Ex.C-1, copy of DDR dated 3.11.2006 Annexure-A, copy of death certificate Annexure-B, copy of cheque dated 28.2.2007 for Rs.1,67,812/- Annexure-C, copy of covering letter dated 28.2.2007 Annexure-D, copy of notice Annexure-E, postal receipts Annexure-F and Annexure-I, copy of pass book deceased Megh Raj Annexure-J, copy of folio of cheque book Annexure-K and closed her evidence. <br /> 8. In order to rebut the evidence of the complainant the opposite party No. 4 tendered in their evidence affidavit of Sh. N.K. Sachdeva B.M., State Bank of Patiala, Bargari Ex.R-1, copy of chapter B-3 (50) Section 21 para No. 21.1 of Bank's Book of Instructions Ex.R-2, copy of cheque returned register dated 16.11.2006 Ex.R-10, copy of statement account Ex.R-11 and closed the evidence on behalf of opposite party No. 4. The opposite party No. 1 and 2 tendered in their evidence copy of policy Ex.R-3, copy of circular of relaxation Ex.R-4, copy of details of payment made to the complainant Usha Rani Ex.R-5, copy of ex-gratia letter Ex.R-6, copy of cheque dated 28.2.2007 Ex.R-7, copy of functioning of Agent Ex.R-8, affidavit of Sanjay Sharma Marketing Manager LIC of India Ex.R-9, attested copy of form No. 3801 of LIC of India Ex.R-12, affidavit of Mohan Lal A.O. LIC of India, Branch Office, Faridkot Ex.R-12/A, signatures of Usha Rani on form No. 3801 Ex.R-13, blank/specimen receipt for payment of premium Ex.R-14 and evidence of opposite party No. 1 and 2 was closed by the order of this Forum vide order dated 15.1.2008. <br /> 9. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have very carefully gone through the affidavits and documents on the file. Our observations and findings are as under.<br /> 10. Learned counsel for the complainant has submitted that the complainant is entitled to the amount of Rs.4,50,000/- alongwith bonus of Rs.17,100/- and interim bonus of Rs.7050/- alongwith interest at the rate of 24% per annum from 3.11.2006 the date of death of Sh. Megh Raj Sharma policy holder. <br /> 11. Learned counsel for the opposite party No. 1 and 2 has submitted that the policy stood lapsed on account of the non payment of the premium even within the grace period. So no amount could have been paid to the complainant, however on sympathy basis as Ex-gratia payment an amount of Rs.1,67,812/- has been paid though the same was not liable to be paid by the opposite party No. 1 and 2. <br /> 12. Learned counsel for the complainant has submitted that amount of Rs.1,67,812/- though have been paid but it was received under protest. The opposite parties took signatures of the complainant by misrepresenting the facts that her entire claim has been paid. Unpaid premium of Rs.6314/- and interest on the same Rs.23.70 paise have been deducted and other deduction of Rs.3,00,000/- has also been made.<br /> 13. Learned counsel for the complainant has further submitted that above noted deductions are illegal. The complainant also is entitled to the interest at the rate of 24% per annum on the amount of Rs.1,67,812/- from 3.11.2006. <br /> 14. Learned counsel for the complainant has submitted that policy never lapsed. The deductions are illegal and entire amount is liable to be paid by the opposite party No. 1 and 2. <br /> 15. Admitted facts of the case are that Sh. Megh Raj Sharma purchased Triple Cover Endowment Plan policy Ex.R-3 on 28.3.2004 for a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- and quarterly installment of Rs.3151/- was required to be paid on 28th of the end of the quarter. So after two years of payment of installments regularly the life insured was entitled for entire benefits to his heirs and nominee. <br /> 16. From perusal of Annexure-K cheque book counter folio it is made out that Megh Raj Sharma have executed cheque No. SB/37 070043 on 16.10.2006 for payment of installment to the Life Insurance Corporation of India for Rs.3151/-. This fact also stands proved from cheque referred register entry of State Bank of Patiala Ex.R-10. Opposite party No. 1 and 2 presented this cheque on 17.10.2006 for payment of the amount of Rs.3151/- to the Life Insurance Corporation of India after collecting the same from Punjab National Bank from the account of Sh. Megh Raj Sharma deceased. The cheque remained pending unpaid for about 16 days in the meanwhile Sh. Megh Raj Sharma unfortunately expired on 3.11.2006. This cheque was to be cleared within short period than that of 16 days. Such like cheques are virtually realized within the period of 7 days from nearby local branches but State Bank of Patiala on 16.11.2006 reported not receiving of the cheque amount due to the death of Megh Raj Sharma. Opposite parties have not produced dishonored cheque. The installment was to be paid on 28.9.2006 but by including grace period it could be paid up till 28.10.2006. Sh. Megh Raj Sharma even prior to the expiry of the grace period have issued the cheque which was dishonored due to his death. <br /> 17. As per Tara Kaundal and another Versus Branch Manager, Life Insurance Company of India and others reported in 2007(1) Consumer Law Today-335 if the cheque is deposited within the grace period by the deceased to the agent of the opposite party No. 1 then insurance company is liable to pay the insurance amount in case cheque is dishonored due to the death of the account holder. This authority is based on the decision of the Hon'ble National Commission in United Commercial Bank Versus Smt. Anita Auran and ors reported in 2003 NCJ-240 (NC). <br /> 18. Since the above noted cheque was account payee and have been deposited within the grace period for the payment of installment so Harshad J. Shah and another Versus L.I.C. of India and others reported in AIR 1997 Supreme Court-2459 relied upon by the learned counsel for the opposite parties is not helpful to the opposite parties, as in this authority it is found mention that cheque was handed over to the agent of Life Insurance Corporation to be paid to the bearer of the cheque. Cheque amount was withdrawn by the agent and same was not deposited for months together even before the death of insurer due to which Life Insurance Corporation was held not liable to pay the insurance amount whereas in the case in hand the cheque has been dishonored due to death of the account holder. No amount of the cheque was ever received by Charanjit Singh Life Insurance Corporation agent so it cannot said that Charanjit Singh opposite party no. 3 being relative of complainant is supporting the case of the complainant illegally. <br /> 19. From the above noted facts and circumstances it is made out that the opposite party No. 1 and 2 have illegally declared the policy lapsed. In such like circumstances the complainant was entitled to receive all the benefits of the policy so calculation made by the opposite party No. 1 and 2 in letter Ex.R-5 are illegal, against law and facts. The opposite party No. 1 and 2 have deducted amount of Rs.6314/- and interest of Rs.23.70 paisa on account of unpaid premium. This amount has not been received by the opposite party No. 1 and 2. Since the policy as per the above noted authorities have not lapsed so complainant was entitled to all the benefits of the policy. Thus deduction of Rs.3,00,000/- in Ex.R-5 is held illegal. The complainant already have received bonus in accordance with law. <br /> 20. From the aforesaid facts and circumstances the complaint of the complainant with regard to deduction of Rs.6314/- and interest Rs.23.70 paise and interest at the rate of 24% per annum on the amount of Rs.1,67,812/- from the date of death of Sh. Megh Raj Sharma is dismissed. The complaint of the complainant with regard to deduction of Rs.3,00,000/- is accepted as this deduction is illegal and against the insurance policy benefits to be given to the complainant. Resultantly the complaint of the complainant is partly accepted. Accordingly the opposite party No. 1 and 2 are directed to make payment of Rs.3,00,000/- alongwith interest at the rate of 12% per annum from 28.2.2007 till the date of the decision of this complaint to the complainant, within the period of one month from the date of the receipt of the copy of this order, failing which the opposite party is directed to pay the above noted amount alongwith interest with further interest of 12% per annum from the date of decision of the complaint till realization of the amount. However the complainant is not entitled to the interest at the rate of 24% per annum on any amount from the date of the death of Sh. Megh Raj Sharma. Copies of the order be sent to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room. <br /> Announced in open Forum:<br /> Dated: 20.2.2008<br />