Ld. Advocate(s)
For Complainant: Makbul Rahaman
For OP/OPs : Raj Kumar Mandal/Prodip Banerjee
Date of filing of the case :05.03.2018
Date of Disposal of the case :13.08.2024
Final Order / Judgment dtd.13.08.2024
The concise fact of the case of the complainant is that the complainant is the mother of Late Sujan Chandra Sil. The complainant purchased the LIC policy no. 447633723 on 17.05.2024 for the period of 20 years with a quarterly premium of Rs.1955/- in the name of Sujan Chandra
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Nadia
(2)
CC/26/2018
Sil , since decease from OP No.1 Branch Manager LICI, Chakdaha through OP No.2 Manas Chakraborty who is an agent of LICI. The complainant was the nominee of her deceased son for the said policy. The said policy holder Sujan Chandra Sil died on 18.05.2016 in a road accident. On enquiry the OP No.2 told the complainant that the said policy was lapsed as the said Sujan Chandra Sil did not pay the premium to him timely. The complainant is an illiterate lady. She had some LICI premium receipts in a tiny note book wherein the entries were written down after payment of premium from the said Sujan Chandra Sil along with date. After collecting the premium amount the OP No.2 was supposed to deposit the premium . The complainant had good faith upon OP No.2. After perusing the said note book and the status of the LICI policy dated 23.08.2016, the complainant was very much upset. She informed it to Ananda Biswas owner of Ananda Fish Supplier. As per Ananda Biswas the said sum of Rs.5600/- was paid by Late Sujan Chandra Sil for LICI premium which was not deposited by OP No.2 . So, the LICI policy was lapsed. Sujan Chandra Sil deposited the following amounts:-
Rs.1,000/- on 12.04.2016+Rs.2,000/- on 23.04.2016+Rs.700/- on 31.04.2016+Rs.600/- on 08.05.2016+Rs.700/- on 06.06.2016+ Rs.600/- on 08.07.2016=Total Rs.5600/-. The OP No.2 was informed about said premium collection and writing in the note book but he denied it. Then the matter was informed to the local councillor for which meetings were held three times in local club. Wherein OP No.2 admitted the mistake and agreed to compensate. Subsequently, the OP No.2 did not pay any money to the complainant . Thereafter on 22.03.2017 the complainant issued a registered letter to OP No.2 which he received with a copy to the OP No.1 LICI but they did not allow the complaint , so the present case is filed. The cause of action arose on 22.03.2017. The complainant prayed for an award directing both the OPs to refund the sum assured against the said policy for Rs.1,00,000/-+accidental benefit of Rs.1,00,000/-, Rs.50,000/- towards compensation for harassment and mental pain and Rs.10,000/- towards litigation cost.
Both the OPs contested the case. The OP No.1 contested the case by filing W/V wherein they denied all the allegation and claimed that the case is barred by limitation. The positive defence case of OP No.1 in brief is that the LICI policy no.447633723 was issued on 17.05.2014 in favour of the Sujan Chandra Sil under term 820/20/15 sum assured was Rs.1,00,000/- and mode of payment of premium was quarterly for Rs.1985/-. Malati Sil was nominee of the said policy . The premium was due on 17.11.2015 but it was not so paid
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Nadia
(3)
CC/26/2018
by the policy holder. The policy holder died on 18.07.2016. On the date of death of the policy holder the policy was not in force. Manas Chakraborty was agent of LICI with agent code no. 0622/436 but he was not authorised by the LICI to collect any premium on behalf of the LICI. The activity of OP No.2 towards collection of premium is not binding on the LICI. Agent Manas Chakraborty was not expressly authorised to collect premium of the said policy. On the date of death of the policy holder the alleged policy was not in force and as such nothing will be admissible under the policy. The OP No.1 claimed that the case is liable to be dismissed with cost.
OP No.2 also contested the case by filing W/V challenging that the case is not maintainable , according to law and the complainant is not a consumer. The OP No.2 denied the major allegation against him. The positive defence case of the O No.2 in brief is that the complainant Malati Sil was the maid servant of OP No.2. The son of Malati Sil namely Sujan Chandra Sil requested to the OP No.2 to open LIC policy in his name . Due to their inability the OP No.2 paid the entire premium of the policy as per their request . They agreed to pay the instalment of premium money. Thereafter, they paid some instalments and OP No.2 noted the same in the note book. The OP No.2 paid total premium for Rs.10219/- in different dates and gave receipts to the deceased son of the complainant. The said Sujan Chandra Sil paid total Rs.5600/- to the OP No.2 as per the note book . The OP No.2 could not pay the premium from his own pocket when huge amount was not paid by Sujan Chandra Sil. The OP No.2 informed it to the said Sujan Chandra Sil and also said that he was not in a position to pay further premium until all dues of OP No.2 are paid. But the said Sujan Chandra Sil did not pay any heed to the same. The OP NO.2 has not yet received Rs.4619/- from the complainant and her son. The OP No.2 is entitled to get Rs.4619/- together with interest.
On the basis of pleadings of all the parties the Commission considers that the following points should be ascertained for proper adjudication of the case.
Points for Determination
Point No.1.
Whether the case is maintainable in its present form and prayer.
Point No.2.
Whether the complainant is entitled to get the relief as prayed for.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Nadia
(4)
CC/26/2018
Point No.3.
To what other relief if any the complainant is entitled to get.
Decision with Reasons
Point No.1.
The opposite parties challenged the case on the ground that the case is bad for defect of parties and barred by law of limitation. During argument Ld. Defence Counsel did not press the said two points. However, having perused the pleadings of the parties and the materials in the case record the Commission finds that admittedly the insured Sujan Chandra Sil died on 18.07.2016. The complainant claimed that the cause of action arose on 22.03.2017, complainant wrote the letters to both the Ops which they received. So, the cause of action arose on and from 22.03.2017.Even if the date of death of the insured is considered as the date of arising the cause of action yet the present case is filed on 05.03.2018. It means the present case is filed well within the limitation period under the C.P Act. So, the case is not barred by limitation.
The Ops could not satisfy as to who are other persons who should be made party to this case. The Ops could not satisfy the other party and as such the case is not bad for defect of parties.
Accordingly, point no.1 is answered in favour of the complainant.
Point No.2&3.
Both the points have close nexus with each other and as such these are taken up together for brevity and convenience of discussion.
It is the admitted position that the son of the complainant is the insured of the disputed claim of the complainant. The OP No.2 stated in his W/V that Malati Sil was the maid servant in the house of OP No.2. The son Malati Sil requested OP No.2 to open a LIC policy in his name. The OP No.2 claimed that he paid the entire policy as per their request. The mother of son promised to pay the dues of premium in instalment to OP No.2. It is the admitted position that they used to pay the money in instalment and the OP No.2 used to note in a note book. The complainant also made out the same case that the payment of premium used to be noted in a note book along with the status of the policy issued on 23.08.2016.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Nadia
(5)
CC/26/2018
The complainant purchased the policy from the OP No.1 insurance company. The complainant claimed that a sum of Rs.5600/- paid by the deceased Sujan Chandra Sil for a LIC premium was not deposited by the OP No.2 Manas Chakraborty, so the LIC policy was lapsed. The complainant further claimed that if the OP No.2 deposited at least two premium of Rs.1955/- each out of Rs.5600/-, then the policy would not have lapsed. The complainant adduced evidence by affidavit in chief that the OP No.2 did not deposit the policy premium money to the OP No.1 and as such the policy was lapsed.
PW2 also corroborated the oral evidence of the PW1. During cross-examination PW2 Ananda Biswas categorically stated inter-alia that he went to LIC Office to know the fate of policy , the authority delivered him a status report of the policy wherefrom he came to know that the OP NO.2 did not deposit the premium though Sujan Chandra Sil paid him the premium which was written in the tiny note book.
Evidence given in a cross-examination has special force. Since the OP No.2 categorically stated in cross-examination that the OP No.2 did not deposit the premium, so the claim of the complainant is strengthened .
The complainant proved the following documents in her evidence:-
1:- Policy Bond.
2:- First premium receipt dated 17.05.2014 in the name of Sujan Chandra Sil.
3:- Renewal premium receipt.
4:- Renewal premium receipt.
5:- Renewal premium receipt.
6:- Status report.
7:- Small tiny book regarding payment of premium.
8:- Death certificate /burning certificate of Sujan Chandra Sil.
9:-Postal application letter to OP No.2.
After close scrutiny of tiny note book it appears that the OP No.2 put signature against noting some money which are claimed by the complainant as the instalment of money paid at different times to
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Nadia
(6)
CC/26/2018
the OP No.2. As per the said noting the following amounts were paid to the OP No.2 against which there is signature of OP No.2:-
Rs.1000/- dated 12.04.2016
Rs.2000/- dated 23.04.2016
Rs.700/- dated 31.04.2016
Rs.600/- dated 08.05.2016
Rs.700/- dated 06.06.2016
Rs.600/- dated 08.07.2016
The total amount of such payment by the deceased Sujan Chandra Sil to the OP No.2 Manas Chakraborty is Rs.5600/-. The complainant duly substantiated the said averment made out in para 4 in the complaint.
The OP No.2 put question no.4 to the complainant as to whether the note book was not the proof of premium paid by OP No.2 earlier from his own pocket and Sujan Chandra Sil paid some money to OP No.2 in instalment. The complainant answered that he has placed a document which is a tiny note book where OP NO.2 used to write down the amounts after getting premium amount from her deceased son and put his signature with date. Everything will speak through the tiny note book where OP No.2 wrote down the collected amount duly signed by him.
If an entry of money is made with a signature it means that the payee has got money. The maker of the payment never put the signature against the amount of money . In said tiny diary, the OP NO.2 put his signature against money paid on different dates for a total sum of Rs.5600/-. So, the denial by the OP No.2 that the son of the complainant did not pay the money is not reasonable and not acceptable.
The said tiny diary also corroborates the other claims of the complainant. From the said diary it is further revealed that the son of complainant deposited a total sum of Rs.2140/- during 11.12.2014 to 10.02.2015 and Rs.4000/- for the period 01.03.2015 to 01.04.2015.
It is the further claim of the complainant that had the OP No.2 paid the premium then the policy would not have become lapsed .
The pleadings and evidence of the case record as well as the plea of the OP No.1 clearly established that the impugned LIC policy was lapsed . The complainant alleged that due to not depositing the policy amount the said policy was lapsed for non-payment of two premiums.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Nadia
(7)
CC/26/2018
Ld. Advocate for the complainant argued that the agent that is OP No.2 did not deposit the policy money after receiving it from the son of the complainant. Had the agent deposited the said money then the complainant would have got the matured policy money after the death of his son.
Ld. Advocate for the OP No.1 LIC argued that due to non-payment of premium the policy was lapsed. He further argued that the complainant could not prove that he paid money to the agent or LIC.
It is not acceptable that the complainant failed to prove that he paid money to the agent. From the previous discussion it is clear that the son of the complainant paid money to the OP No.2 through a tiny note book at different times. However, it is fact that the complainant himself or his son did not deposit the said premium personally to the OP No.1. After perusing the different premium receipts it is found that the policy was used to be deposited through agent code no.04622436. The OP No.2 admitted in his W/V that OP No.2 is an agent of OP NO.1.
Ld. Advocate for the OP No.1 LIC argued that the every agent is not authorised to collect the premium. Only authorised agent collect premium.
The argument has not sufficient force in as much as the OP No.1 could not prove any document as to who is the authorised agent to collect the money and which agent has no power to collect money.
The OP No.2 claimed that he paid premium from his own pocket for the benefit of Sujan Chandra Sil . Malati Sil and Sujan Chandra Sil both of them promised that they shall pay the dues of OP NO.2 by instalment .
So, if for the sake of argument it is presumed that the complainant or his deceased son did not pay all the instalment yet the OP No.2 could not prove any time limit within which the alleged due money agreed to be paid by the complainant or her deceased son. Therefore, if it is presumed that some money was due but OP No.2 never asked the complainant in writing or in any manner that if they did not pay the alleged outstanding money to him then the policy would be lapsed.
The continuation of LIC policy depends upon payment of premium. The agent has some duty and responsibility to inform the policy holder about the fate of the policy in the event of non-payment of any premium. The relation between the complainant and the OP No.2 is not only an agent and policy holder but the complainant was a maid servant of the OP No.2 as claimed by OP No.2 and as such she also used to earn money from the OP No.2 for her work as maid servant in his house. The OP No.2 could not adduce sufficient evidence to establish the defence case that he used to
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Nadia
(8)
CC/26/2018
pay the premium from his own pocket when huge amount was not by paid by Sujan Chandra Sil.
OP No.2 also stated that OP No.2 informed Sujan Chandra Sil that he was not in a position to pay further premium until all dues of OP No.2 are paid.
The said allegation does not hold good because Sujan Chandra Sil is already dead and as such he could not adduce any evidence.
Actually the complainant is the best person to whom the OP No.2 is supposed to say those words because the complainant was immediately available to the OP No.2 who claimed to have worked in his house as maid servant . So, OP No.2 could have told to the complainant that if the said huge amount was not paid then he would not pay the premium further.
The complainant challenged as to whether the OP NO.2 could produce any document that Manas Chakrborty was maid servant in her house. The complainant answered as vague question.
It is also asked in cross-examination to OP No.2 as to whether he could submit any document regarding payment of premium from his own pocket.
He avoided the answer by only stating that question does not arise and record will speak for itself.
Similarly when he was asked in cross-examination as to whether he had any document that Malati SIl is his maid servant . He answered as vague question. Almost in all the questions to OP No.2 during cross-examination he avoided the answer or could not answer specifically .
Therefore, after assessing the entire evidence it is not established that the complainant was a maid servant under OP No.2.
However, even if for the sake of argument if it is presumed that the complainant was a maid servant under OP No.1 in that case also the OP No.2 could have recovered the outstanding premium money from the complainant. Non-payment of outstanding premium despite his knowledge that in the event of failure to pay the premium it would cause lapse of the policy is an unfair trade practice on the part of agent. Therefore the OP No.2 has acted with the complainant in a manner which tantamounts to deficiency in service by an agent to the policy holder . It stands well established that due to fault of the OP No.2 the insurance policy has been lapsed as claimed by OP No.1.
OP No.2 also admitted the veracity of the said tiny diary but could not justify the ground for non-payment of the premium of the LIC policy.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Nadia
(9)
CC/26/2018
In the backdrop of the aforesaid discussion and observation made hereinabove the Commission comes to the finding that the complainant duly proved the case against the OP No.2 upto the hilt.
Consequently , point no. 2&3 are answered in affirmative in favour of the complainant.
Accordingly, the complaint case succeeds on contest against OP No.2 and dismissed on contest against OP No.1 with cost.
Hence,
It is
Ordered
that the complaint case no.CC/26/2018 be and the same is allowed on contest against OP No.2 and dismissed on contest against OP NO.1with cost of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand). The complainant Malati Sil do get an award against OP no.2 Manas Chakraborty for a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees two lakh) against sum assured of the said policy plus accidental death benefit and Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand) towards harassment and mental pain and agony. The OP NO.2 is directed to pay Rs.2,10,000/- (Rupees two lakh ten thousand) to the complainant within 30 days from the date of passing the final order failing which the entire award money shall carry an interest @8% p.a from the date of passing the final award till the date of its realisation.
All Interim Applications (I.A) stand disposed of accordingly.
D.A to note in the trial register.
The case is accordingly disposed of.
Let a copy of this final order be supplied to both the parties at free of costs.
Dictated & corrected by me
............................................
PRESIDENT
(Shri HARADHAN MUKHOPADHYAY,) ................ ..........................................
PRESIDENT
(Shri HARADHAN MUKHOPADHYAY,)
I concur,
........................................
MEMBER
(SHRI NIROD BARAN ROY CHOWDHURY)
