Adv.for the complainant - Self
Adv.for the O.P No.1 & 2 - Sri. G.C.Behera,
Adv.for the O.P No.3 - Sri R.K.Mahakur
Date of filing of the case – 22.12.2014
Date of order - 21.06.2017
JUDGMENT
Sri A.K.Purohit, President
The case of the complainant is that, while he was an employee of the OP.3, he had taken a LIC Policy Vide Policy No.590303403 dt.03.11.1988 under the Jeevan Dhara Pension Scheme. The Policy is for a G.V. S amount of Rs.120000/- and the annuity amount is Rs.1000/-. The premium payable at the rate of Rs.92.50P and the mode of payment is salary savings scheme. The maturity date of the policy is 03.11.2013. The Complainant has pleaded that, he has left the service of the Op No.3 in the month of August’2005 and hence his premium amount has been deducted from his salary upto August’2005 and paid by his employer to the insurance company. The complainant alleged that, after several representation the Op.1 & 2 has settled the pension amount for Rs.885/- for a G.V.S amount of Rs.88,521/- which is less than the policy condition and hence the complainant has preferred this case for enhancement of his pension amount from Rs.885/- to Rs.1000/- Per month.
2. The OP.1 & 2 have filed their written version jointly & OP.3 has filed his written version separately. According to OP.1 &2 the complainant had taken two policy vide Policy No.590305059, wherein the maturity value of Rs.54367/- has already been released on dt.28.03.2015 and policy No.590303403 has been settled for an annuity amount of Rs.885/- per month, on verification of required documents. The OP No.1&2 have averred that, due to nonpayment of premium from August’2004 to January’2005 by the employer the annuity amount has been settled for Rs.885/-. It is also averred by the OPNo.1 & 2 that , under a salary saving policy once the policy holder is removed from service, the SSC Policy convert into ordinary mode and hence taking into consideration of all terms and conditions the annuity amount has been settled for Rs.885/- and there is no deficiency in service on the part of the Op No.1 &2.
3. According to O.P No.3, the complainant was working as Development Officer in the office of the Op No.3 and removed from service w.e.f 19.07.2004. During his service period, the OP No.3 regularly deducted the LIC premium and remitted the same up to July’2004 vide receipt No.8947479 dt.04.08.2004. The Op No.3 claims no deficiency in service on his part.
4. Heard both the parties perused the material available an record. It is an admitted fact that, during his service with the OP.No.3 , the complainant had taken two LIC Policy vide policy No.5903053 & No.59030403. There is no dispute relating to policy No.590305059. The dispute between the parties is relating to settlement of annuity amount for the policy No.590303403.
5. It appears from the material available on record that, according to the complainant he had left his service after August’2005. On the other hand the OP No.3 employer submitted that, the complainant was removed from service with effect from 19.07.2004. The OP No.1&2 submitted that they have not received premium from August’2004 to Jan’2005 which shows that, they have received premium from the employer upto July’2004. There is no clear evidence available on record to show that when the complainant has left his service. The Complainant has produced a copy of invoice register where in he has paid the premium upto August’2005 on dt.30.12.2005. The evidence is not supported by any other evidence nor the complainant has taken any step to call for the original record maintained by the OP No.3 during regular course of business. In the absence of clear evidence it is too difficult to believe that the complainant has left his service after August’2005. To decide this issue it is necessary to record evidence of witness and to examine the original record maintained by the Ops during their regular course of business which is not possible in a summary procedure. The complainant may approach a regular court of law for redressal of his grievance if so advised.
Accordingly the case of the complainant is dismissed without cost.
ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN FORUM THIS THE 21ST DAY OF JUNE ’2017.
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
(S.Rath) (G.K.Rath) (A.K.Purohit)
MEMBER. MEMBER. PRESIDENT
