This complaint has been filed by the complainant under Section-12 of Consumer Protection Act seeking direction to the Opposite Party No-1 to regularize the Policies No. 572340931, Policy No. 572352021 reciprocally and at the same time to pay Rs. 50,000/- (Fifty thousand) only towards the compensation for mental agony, physically harassment and financial loss and also to direct to pay Rs. 10,000/- as cost of the litigation expenses & to pass any other order/orders as the Forum deems fit and proper in the interest of justice.
The factual matrix as fond from the complaint petition is that the complainant is a policy holder of Opposite Party No-1 vides Policy No. 572340931, Policy No. 572341595 & Policy No. 572352021 under salary saving scheme. The monthly premium of said policies are deposited with the Opposite Party No-1 in every month on Salary deduction basis to be deducted by the District Welfare Office, Malkangiri (OP No-2) from the salary of the complainant without any interruption. The complainant received a notice from the Opposite Party No-1 to the effect that the above three policies are irregular due to non deposit of monthly premium for the month of February-2012, March-2012 and April-2012. Thereafter, the complainant verified the pay & acquaintance roll maintained by the DWO, Malkangiri OP No-2 and found that the monthly premium @ Rs. 428/- in Policy No. 572340931, Rs. 216/- in policy No. 572341595, Rs. 510/- in Policy No. 572352021 for the monthly of February-2012, March-2012 and April-2012 has been deducted and deposited with the Opposite party vide bill no. 43/12-13 dated 18.5.2012 and TV No. 25 dated 24.5.2012. It is further case of the complainant is that in order to clarify on the above deduction and deposits, the complainant obtained necessary certificate from the Opposite Party No-2 with regard to the said deduction and submitted the name before the Opposite Party –LIC for regularization of her irregular policies. Despite submission of necessary certificates on the deduction and deposit with the LIC the Opposite Party No-1 neither regularized the above three policies nor made any correspondence with the OP No-2 in this regard. Under the above circumstances, finding no alternative the complainant was compelled to file present complaint before this forum.
On receipt of notice, the Opposite Party No-1 appeared through his Counsel and filed his written version. In his written version the, Opposite Party No-1 contended that the subscription of the above three policies for the month of February, 2012 to April,2012 was not deposited by the deducting authority in time and after intimation the deducting authority deposited the monthly due installments for the period from February,2012 to April,2012. It is further contended that the petitioner of the petition in paragraph No-4 is clear about the non deposit of the installments by the deducting officer that is the OP No-2 as such there is no deficiency of service nor harassment caused by the Opposite Party No-1. As the Opposite Pary No-1 has not committed any deficiency in service towards the complainant he prays for dismissal of complaint against him.
Despite notice, the Opposite Party No-2 neither appeared nor filed his version in this case as such he was set ex-parte vide our order dated 28.09.2015.
Heard the authorized representative of the complainant and Ld. Counsel appearing for the Opposite Party No-1. Perused the pleading of the complainant and written version of the Opposite Party No-1 and gone through the documents and record. It is not disputed that the complainant is policy holder of the policies in question. It is also not disputed that the Policies remained irregular for indefinite period. It appears that after receipt of notice from the forum and basing upon the deduction certificate dated 30.1.2015 of the Opposite Party No-2, the Policies of the complainant were regularized. In course of hearing it came to the notice that the amount of first installment of money back of policy no. 572340931 is too less than the actual amount due to irregularity of policy. It appears that in order to regularize the irregular policies, the Opposite Party No-1 had not made any query/correspondence with the OP No-2 who is acting as the agent as the LIC. Here, were failed to understand, what prevented the Opposite Party No-1 not to make any correspondences with the Opposite Party No-2 on the deduction and deposit of premiums on the above policies. Hence it is crystal clear that the policies remained irregular for two years and above and the amount of money back policy in policy No. 572340931 is paid less than the actual entitlements due to the deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties. Further the OP No-1 in his written version at para-6 contended that the petitioner of the petition in paragraph No-4 is clear about the non deposit of the installments by the deducting officer that is the OP No-2 as such there is no deficiency of service non harassment caused by the Opposite Party No-1. Hence, it appears that the Opposite Party-1 is trying to escape from his liabilities. It is evident that the relationship between the Opposite Parties No-1 with the OP No-2 is obviously that of the principal and the agent respectively. It is well settled that the Principal is liable for every act of the agent except his personal criminal acts. In view of the above, we came to conclusion that the Opposite party – LIC has committed gross deficiency in service towards the poor complainant who was definitely put to financial loss, sustained mental agony, physical harassment and finding no other alternative was compelled to knock at the door of Consumer Forum to get proper justice.
In course of hearing we have been fortified by a decision of Hon’ble Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Mumbai in Smt. Usha Kiran Bhagwat and another Vs. Divisional Manager, Life Insurance Corporation of India and Others reported in 2008(3) CPR 315 wherein it was held that in any contract of insurance, employer under Salary Saving Scheme would be treated as an agent of LIC and failure on the part of employer to make a payment of premium to LIC would be the liability of LIC itself. In another decision of Hon’ble Himachal Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Shimla in Vivsa Devi Vs. LIC of India and Others reported in 2009 (3) CPR 282 wherein it was held that in an insurance under Salary Saving Scheme employer acts as agent in Insurance Company and in case for any reason if employer did not deduct and or after deduction did not remit premium amount, claimant could not be made to suffer. In the matter of Rani Gautam Vs. LIC of India and Others reported in 2009 (4) CPR 384, the Hon’ble Rajasthan State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Jaipur in Uma wherein it was held that in a Life Insurance Policy taken under Salary Saving Scheme, employer was the agent of corporation.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the Matter of Gazhiabad Development Authority Versus Balbir Singh reported in 1986-2004 CONSUMER 8287 (NS) held that :
“The provision of the Consumer Protection Act enables a consumer to claim and empower the Commission to redress any injustice done. The Commission or the Forum is entitled to award not only value of goods or services but also to compensate a consumer for injustice suffered by him. The Commission/Forum must determine that such sufferance is due to malafide or capricious or oppressive act. It can then determine amount for which the authority is liable to compensate the consumer for his sufferance sue to misfeasance in public officer by the officers. Such compensation is for vindicating the strength of law. It acts as a check on arbitrary and capricious exercise of power. It helps in curing social evil. It will hopefully result in improving the work culture and in changing the outlook of the officer/public servant. No authority can arrogate to itself the power to act in a manner which is arbitrary.”
The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Lucknow Development Authority vs. M.K. Gupta 1994 (1) SC 243.
A public functionary if he acts maliciously or oppressively and the exercise of power result in harassment and agony there it is not exercise of power but its abuse. No law provides protection against it. He, who is responsible for it, must suffer for it. …………………………………………….
The Hon’ble Apex court further observed that :
“It should further direct the department concerned to pay the amount to the complainant from the public fund immediately but to recover the same from those who are found responsible for such unpardonable behavior by dividing it proportionately where there are more than one functionaries.”
After hearing the Counsel for the parties, going through the facts of the present complaint, and counter of the Opposite Parties, points argued by the learned Counsel, perusing the documents placed on the record very carefully and referring the cited decision, we are of the considered view that the complainant is entitled to get the relief. Hence we pass the following order :
ORDER
THE Opposite Parties No.1 is directed to pay an amount of Rs. 15,000/- as compensation for harassment and Rs. 5,000/- for litigation charges to the complainant.
The Order shall be complied with within 30 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. In default, the complainant is at liberty to invoke the section 25 & 27 of CP Act., 1986.
Supply free copies of this order to the parties as per rules.
Delivered on this the 10th December, 2015.
