Present (1) Nisha Nath Ojha,
District & Sessions Judge (Retd.) President
(2) Smt. Karishma Mandal,
Member
Date of Order : 30.11.2016
Nisha Nath Ojha
- In the instant case the Complainant has sought for following reliefs against the Opposite party:-
- To direct the opposite parties to pay Rs. 1,00,000/- ( Rs. One Lakh only ) as compensation for deficiency in service.
- The facts of this case lies in a narrow compass which is as follows:-
The complainant has asserted that he has taken 12 years money back policy bearing no. 520109684 with profits sum assured of Rs. 50,000/- from opposite parties. The complainant had paid entire premium but the opposite parties have not complied the terms and conditions of the insurance policy which has been annexed in the complaint petition as annexure – 1. It is further case of the complainant that as per terms of the policy ( vide annexure – 1), the opposite parties were required to pay the complainant 20% of the sum assured i.e. Rs. 10,000/- and after 4 years 20% of the sum assured and lastly 40% of the sum assured.
The grievance of the complainant is that the aforesaid policy was matured on 20.06.2005 but the opposite parties neither informed nor paid the due amount rather opposite parties paid 20% amount i.e. Rs. 10,000/- on 22.12.2009 as well as on 23.12.2009 while the real fact is that as per terms and conditions of annexure – 1 the aforesaid amount must have been paid in 1997 and 2001.
It is further asserted by the complainant that last matured amount of Rs. 62,250/- was paid on 29.01.2010 instead of 20.06.2005. The complainant has further asserted that the aforesaid policy vide annexure – 1 has been taken on 20.06.1993 on monthly premium of Rs. 442/- deductable from salary account and the same was regularly paid by the complainant and as such the policy was matured on 20.06.2005. The grievance of the complainant is that the policy got matured on 20.06.2005 but the opposite parties did not pay the aforesaid amount as per terms and conditions contained in annexure – 1. The complainant asserted that he is entitled for 12% on the amount which he would had received on due date but have received after 12 years and 9 years delay.
On behalf of opposite parties a written statement has been filed stating therein that the opposite parties have already paid the maturity insured value to the tune of Rs. 62,250/- along with two SB dues of Rs. 10,000/- each towards full and final under the money back policy bearing no. 520109684, T.T. 75/12 for the sum insured of Rs. 50,000/- which the complainant insured received without protest.
In Para – 4 of the written statement the following facts have been asserted, “That however, S.B. dues in 6/1997 and 6/2001 and further maturity value due on 6/2005 were paid on 22.12.2009, 23.12.2009 and 18.10.2010 respectively on receipt of original “Policy Bond” and “Discharge Voucher” which were in fact submitted late by the policy holder complainant in december 2009.”
Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
From bare perusal of complaint petition and written statement it is crystal clear that the complainant has not been paid due amount as per terms and conditions of annexure – 1 for want of submission of discharge voucher, policy bond etc. because the fact asserted in Para – 7, 8 and 9 of complaint petition has not been denied in Para – 12 of written statement. It further appears that Para – 12 of written statement it is repeated that due to fault of the insured in submitting policy bond and discharge voucher etc. with opposite party no. 1 the claim of the insured could not be settled on due time and as such the interest is not payable.
It is needless to say that in whole of the written statement there is no any whisper that the complainant was informed about the maturity of the Bond whereby and where under the complainant was entitled to receive the amounts on different dates. The complainant has asserted that he has been made to run pillar to post in order to receive the amount which he had received after much delay. In Para – 7 of the complaint petition the complainant has mentioned that he had received the due amount after delay of 12 years and 9 years.
In our opinion the opposite parties were duty bound to inform the complainant in time for submitting relevant documents which has not been done causing financial loss to the complainant which has also been resulted in mental agony of the complainant.
The aforesaid conduct of the opposite parties definitely constitute deficiency in service.
Hence we direct the opposite parties to pay 9% interest on the amount which the complainant would receive as per terms of the policy ( the details of which is mentioned in Para – 1 of the complaint petition) to the complainant from the date of maturity till its final payment within the period of three months from the date of receipt of this order or certified copy of this order failing which the opposite parties will have to pay 12% interest on the same till its final payment.
Opposite parties are further directed to pay Rs. 5,000/- ( Rs. Five Thousand only ) to the complainant by way of compensation and litigation costs within the period of three months.
Accordingly this complaint petition stands allowed to the extent referred above.
Member President
