<br /> <br /> By SRI.K. VIJAYAKUMARAN, PRESIDENT.<br /> <br /> <br /> This is a complaint filed claiming survival benefit under the LIC policy.<br /> <br /> The averments in the complaint can be briefly summarized as follows:<br /> <br /> The complainant is a Military personal who is to work in the different parts of the country. While the complainant was on leave during the period of October 1995, a person approached him and introducing as an agent of LIC having agency code 03289787 working under the 1st opp.party's branch. On whose request the complainant took a policy of Rs,25,000/- dated 7.10.1995The policy had a special future is paying survival benefit every 5 years. The complainant remitted the premium amount of Rs.425/- every quarterly the address was given that the home for the communication. The first survival benefits of Rs,5,000/- it was due on 8.10.2000. The complainant at that time was working at Hariyana. The complainant enquired to his mother about the cheque authorizing the survival benefit but was told that no cheque mount was received. As per the telephone instruction of the complainant to his mother she approached the agent who also told that he had not knowledge about the present conditions of the policy as he is working as a development Officer when the complainant came on leave during December 2004 he approached the first opp.party who gave the vague answer. On repeated enquiries the first opp.party did not gave any further details which is illegal and unfair trade practice and also deficiency in service on the part of the opp.party. Hence the complaint.<br /> <br /> The opp.parties filed a joint version as follows: The complainant is a holder of LIC policy No.781256345 and the sum assured is Rs.25,000/- under plan 75 and term as 20 years. The date of commencement of the policy is 7.10.1995 and the mode of premium is Rs.425/- quarterly. As per the proposal for filled by the complainant before the 1st opp.party the permanent address of the complainant is Puliyara Puthen Veedu, Thekkevila.P.O., Kollam and the address for communication is also a same. The policy was canvassed by one Sri.I. Balachandran Pillai who is the brother of the complainant himself. The averments in the complainant that the agent introduced him as LIC agent etc. are utter falsehood. There is suppression of material fact with respect to those aspects. Plan 75 policy has a special condition of paying 20% of the sum assured as survival benefit to the life assured on completing 5 years from the date of commencement of the policy. The first survival benefit fell due on 7.10.2000 the sum was settled on 4.10.2000 there was a general circular to expedite the settlement of survival benefit against those policies. So the survival benefit was settled without policy and discharge form the cheque for Rs,5,000/- was sent to the complainant in his address to proposal form . After the issue of the policy no chance in the address was was intimated to the LIC of India. The cheque was an account payee cheque with bearing No.995875 dated 7.10.2000 payable at the Bank of Madurai, Kollam. The Bank of Madurai has been subsequently amalgamated with ICICI Bank, . The averments in the para 4 are not known to the opp.party. If there was any change in the address for communication the assured informed the LIC since there was no such communication the cheque was sent in the address in the proposal form the registered postal articles sent to the sufficient never returned unserved. The despatch register maintained of the opp.party would show that the cheque has been despatched to the addressee. So the presumption of law is the address might have received registered postal articles containing the cheque was the presumption is that the cheque was encashed was encashed from the ICICI Bank and amount debited from the LIC's account.. Being the crossed cheque only the drawee could encashed the cheque through his cheque. The averment in para 5 of the complaint are not true. By registered letter dt. 13.8.2003 the opp.party informed the complainant about the timely settlement of survival benefit and also the despatch of the cheque in his home address. The same information was also given to the complainant then approached the office of the opp.party but all these facts were deliberately suppressed by the complainant with ulterior motive. The LIC of India is communicating with the ICICI Bank to identify the payee of the cheque if it is other than the life assured. Since the amount payable to the complainant as per the contract of insurance was already paid. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the opp.party. The complainant has no cause of action against the opp.party. The contractual obligation under the terms of the policy was discharged by the opp.party and the remedy opened to the complainant is to proceed against the ICICI Bank. If the person who drew the amount is other than the complainant on receipt of the complaint from the complainant t he opp.party wrote to the ICICI Bank and from their reply it is seen that the cheque was cleared on 15.1.2001. The complainant did not plead what deficiency of service the opp.party committed in discharging their contractual obligation. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the opp.party. Hence the opp.party prays to dismiss the complaint.<br /> <br /> Point that would arise for consideration are:<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> 1.Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opp.party.<br /> 2.Whether the complainant is entitled to get the amount from the opp.party.<br /> 3.Reliefs and costs..<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> For the complainant PW.1 is examined. Ext. P1 is marked.<br /> <br /> <br /> For the opp.parties DW.1 and DW.2 are examined. Ext. D1 to D13 are marked.<br /> <br /> <br /> Points<br /> <br /> The policy as well as its features are admitted the case of the complainant is that the 1st survival benefit of Rs.5,000/- on the policy was not paid to him which is deficiency in service on the part of the opp.party. The default case of opp.party is that the survival benefit was send to the complainant by account of payer cheque of Bank of Madurai, Kollam even before the receipt of policy and discharged form in pursuant to a general circular in the address in the policy evidenced by Ext. D4 and the same was not refund from which it can be inferred that the cheque has been received by complainant. Opp.party has produced Exts. D5 to D7 to establish this aspect.<br /> <br /> The complainant as per Ext.D8 letter addressed opp.party stating that he did lnot receive the cheque alleged to have been issued to him. Thereupon the opp.party adduced the ICICI Bank as per Ext.D9 and D10 as the Bank of Madurai was amalgamated with ICICI in 2001 and the ICICI Bank issued Ext.D11 series that the above cheque was presented by the Punjab National Bank, Castle line Ambala Branch for clearance on 15.1.2001 and the cheque has been cleared and encashed. Ext D11 was produced by DW.2 which shows that cheque No.995875 for Rs.5000/- was debited on 15.1.2005 from the account of the LIC maintained with the ICICI Bank. Ext.D11series shows that cheque NO.995875 was issued as an account payer cheque to the complainant on 13.10.2000 and the same was sent for collection by the Punjab National Bank. In the version itself the opp.party has stated that the cheque was encashed from ICICI Bank and amount debited from the LIC's account. So the complaint if he has not received the amount ought to have impleaded ICICI bank to the party array. <br /> <br /> Ext. D12 is the copy of the cheque issued by the opp.party 1 to the complainant. Ext. D12 shows that it is an account payee cheque in the name of the complainant such a cheque cannot be encashed by any one else. DW.1 has stated that Ext.D12 has been sent to them for collection by the Punjab National Bank and the cheque was honoured and the account was debited from the account of the opp.party evidenced by Ext. D10. So the contention of opp.party that they have issued the 1st survival benefit to the complainant stands proved by Exts. D8 to 13, XI and the evidence of DW.2. Merely became the f the despatch register was not produced the above documents and the evidence of DW.1 cannot be ignored . Opp.parties have issued Ext.D12 on 13.10.2000 ie within days after the amount became due and as such it cannot be said that there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opp.parties. When it is encashed that Ext.D12, an account payee cheque issued in the name of the complainant was encashed and if the amount as per the cheque was not received by the complainant he ought to have moved the apprlpriate authority for the non receipt of the amount rather than attributing deficiency in service on the party of the opp.parties herein from the available evidence. We find that there is lno deficiency in service on the part of the opp.parties. Point found accordingly.<br /> <br /> <br /> In the result the complaint fails and the same is hereby dismissed. No costs.<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> Dated this the 19th day of June, 2008.<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> I N D E X<br /> <br /> <br /> List of witnesses for the complainant<br /> PW.1. - Ramachandran Pillai<br /> <br /> <br /> List of documents for the complainant.<br /> P1. - Copy of Premium receipt<br /> <br /> <br /> List of witnesses for the opp.party<br /> DW.1. - K. Sundaresan<br /> DW.2. - Tintu Boby George.<br /> <br /> <br /> List of documents for the opp.party<br /> D1. - Proposal form dated 15.9.1995.<br /> D2. - Policy certificate<br /> D3. - Letter issued to the complainant dated 28.7.2000.<br /> D4. - Letter dated 4.10.2000 given to the complainant<br /> D5. - Date regarding the payment<br /> D6. - Claim payment voucher<br /> D7. - Letter sent by the complainant<br /> D8. - Letter given to the ICICI Bank dt. 23.7.2003.<br /> D9. - Remainder letter dated 13.8.20003<br /> D10. - Letter issued by the ICICI Bank to the LID dt. 2.3.3005<br /> D11. - Letter dated 15.3.2005<br /> D12. - Copy of cheque<br /> D13. - Copy of Bill of collection<br /> <br />