IN THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, MURSHIDABAD AT BERHAMPORE.
CASE No. CC/160/2018.
Date of Filing: Date of Admission: Date of Disposal:
04.10.18 11.10.18 17.09.19
Complainant: Soukhin Pramanik
S/o Late Sachindra Bhusan Pramanik
Vill-Nowdapara
PO- Kaladanga, PS-Doulatabad
Dist-Murshidabad
Pin-742304
-Vs-
Opposite Party: 1. The Branch Manager,
Life Insurance Corporation of India (LICi),
Chak Islampur Branch,
Vill + PO + PS-Islampur,
Dist- Murshidabad,
Pin-742304
2. The Branch Manager,
Life Insurance Corporation of India ( LICI),
Kolkata Suburban Divisional Office,
Jeevan Prabha, DD- 5, Sector-1,
Salt Lake City,
Kolkata-700064
Agent/Advocate for the Complainant : Sri. Rajdip Goswami.
Agent/Advocate for the Opposite Party No. 1 : Sri. Subhash Saha.
Agent/Advocate for the Opposite Party No. : None.
Present: Sri Asish Kumar Senapati………………….......President.
Smt. Aloka Bandyopadhyay……………………..Member.
FINAL ORDER
One Soukhin Pramanik (here in after referred to as the Complainant) filed the case against The Branch Manager, LICI, Chak Islampur Branch and Another (here in after referred to as the OPs) praying for compensation alleging deficiency in service.
The sum and substance of the complaint case is as follows:-
One Sandip Pramanik had a money back policy of 20 years under the LICI vide policy No. 428252386 and the date of maturity of the said policy was 09.07.30. The said Sandip Pramanik expired on 20.06.15 and his father Soukhin Pramanik, the Complainant, foled the case claiming Rs. 50,000/- by submitting relevant documents on 03.08.15. In spite of that OP No.1 did not pay any heed to the claim of the Complainant. Ultimately, the Complainant submitted a complaint to the Assistant Director, CA&FBP, Murshidabad Regional Office but the OP did not turn up in spite of service of notice. Hence, the Complainant has filed the case praying for a direction upon the OPs to pay Rs.50,000/- along with bonus and interest @ 10% per annum up to the date of payment, compensation of Rs.20,000/- for mental pain and deficiency in service and Rs.10,000/- for litigation cost against the OPs.
The OP No.1 contested the case by filing written version on 17.12.18 contending that the case is not maintainable. The OP No.1 denied the allegations of the Complainant. It is the case of the OP No.1 that the Complainant informed the death of Sandip Pramanik on 16.07.15 whereby it was seen that the date of death of Sandip Pramanik was 20.06.15. It was an early claim reckoning from the date of revival i.e. death within 3 years from the death revival. After receiving the claim form and other relevant documents, the claim was sent to higher office. On receiving the completed forms, the claim was admitted by the competent authority and the discharge from (F3801) was sent to the claim through speed post with a forwarding letter dated 24.09.18. The gross amount is Rs.59,750/- ( PSA Rs. 50,000/-, VB Rs.7,800/-, IB Rs.1,950/-) and net payable amount is Rs.49,750/- because an amount of Rs.10,000/- was paid through NEFT survival benefit due on 09.07.15. The OP is ready for payment of the above amount after receiving discharge form F3801 executed by the claimant and properly witnessed along with his KYC documents.
There is no negligence on the part of the OPs. The OP No.1 prays for dismissal of the complaint with cost.
The OP No.2 did not turn up in spite of service of notice.
On the basis of the above version the following points are framed for proper adjudication of the case :
Points for consideration
1. Isthe Complainant a consumer under the provision of the CP Act, 1986?
2. Has this Forum jurisdiction to entertain the complaint?
3. Have the OPs any deficiency in service, as alleged?
4. Is the Complainant entitled to get any relief, as prayed for?
Point no.1
The Ld. Advocate for the Complainant submits that the Complainant is a consumer as he is the beneficiary of Sandip Pramanik, since deceased who hired services of the OPs for consideration.
On going through the complaint, written version and other materials on record and on a careful consideration over the submission of both sides, we find that the Complainant is a consumer in terms of section 2 (I )(d) (ii) of the C.P.Act, 1986.
Point No.2
The Ld. Advocate for the Complainant submits that the cause of action arose within the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum and the claimed amount is also within pecuniary limit of the District Forum.
On a careful consideration over the materials on record, we find that the cause of action arose within the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum and this Forum has pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the complaint
Point Nos.3&4
The Ld. Advocate for the Complainant submits that the OP No. 1 has admitted the claim of the Complainant but the OPs did not assigned any reason for not settling the claim of the Complainant. It is contended that the OP has deficiency in service and the Complainant is entitled to get the compensation and cost of litigation against the OPs.
In reply, the Ld. Advocate for the OP No.1 submits that the Complainant informed the death of Sandip Pramanik on 16.07.15 though Sandip Pramanik expired on 20.06.15. It is argued that after receiving the claim form and other relevant documents, the claim was sent to higher office ( Divisional Office) and ultimately, the OPs are ready for payment of Rs.49,750/- by deducting Rs.10,000/- which was already paid through NEFT ( due on 09.07.15). It is contended that the OP No.1 sent discharge from F3801 by speed post on 24.09.18 but the Complainant has not yet submitted the discharge form along with KYC documents for releasing the amount of Rs.49,750/-. It is contended that the OPs have deficiency in service and the Complainant is no entitled to get any relief against the OPs.
Admittedly, one Sandip Pramanik had an LICI policy being No. 428250386 and the sum assured was Rs.50,000/-. According to the version of the OP No.1 the policy was lapsed but subsequently it was revived on 05.09.14. Admittedly, the Complainant is none but the father of Sandip Pramanik and he claimed the sum assured from the OPs on 16.07.15. The OP No.1 has stated in his Written Version and evidence that the OP is ready for payment of Rs.49,750/- after deducting Rs.10,000/- which was already paid through NEFT survival benefit ( due on 09.07.15) out of gross amount of Rs.59,750/-. The Complainant has not denied the fact of payment of Rs.10,000/- through NEFT survival benefit on 09.07.15.
On a careful consideration we find that the OPs took more than 3 years for settling the claim of the Complainant which amounts to deficiency in service.
Therefore, we think that the Complainant is entitled to get Rs.49,750/- from the OPs and he is also entitled to get Rs.5,000/- for deficiency in service and Rs.2,000/- as litigation cost.
Reasons for delay
The Case was filed on 04.10.18 and admitted on 11.10.18 . This Forum tried its level best to dispose of the case as expeditiously as possible in terms of the provision under section 13(3A) of the CP Act,1986. Delay in disposal of the case has also been explained in the day to day orders.
Fees paid are correct.
In the result, the complaint case succeeds. Hence, it is
ORDERED
that the Complaint Case No. CC/160/2018 be and the same is hereby allowed on contest against the OPNo.1 with cost and allowed ex-parte against the O.P. No.2 with cost.
The OPs are directed to pay Rs.49,750/- to the Complainant by sixty days from the date of this order. The OPs are further directed to pay Rs.5,000/- for deficiency in service and Rs.2,000/- as litigation cost to the Complainant by sixty days from the date of this order.
The Complainant is directed to submit discharge Form (F3801) and other documents including KYC before the OP No.1 by 15 days from the date of this order.
Let plain copy of this order be supplied free of cost, to each of the parties / Ld. Advocate/Agent on record, by hand /by post under proper acknowledgment as per rules, for information and necessary action.
The Final Order will also be available in the following Website:
confonet.nic.in
Dictated & corrected by me.
President
Member President.
