IN THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, MURSHIDABAD AT BERHAMPORE.
CASE No. CC/128/2013
Date of Filing: 14.11.2013 Date of Final Order: 29 .04.2015.
Complainant: Pradip Kumar Dam, S/O Late Narendranath Dam, Bakim Pally West, P.O.& P.S.
Madhyamgram, Dist. 24-Parganas North, Pin- 700129.
-Vs-
Opposite Party: Branch Manager, L.I.C.I. Berhampore Branch, K.N. Road, P.O.& P.S. Berhampore,
Dist. Murshidabad. Pin 742101.
Present: Sri Anupam Bhattacharyya ………………….President.
Sri Samaresh Kumar Mitra ……………………..Member.
Smt. Pranati Ali ……….……………….……………. Member
FINAL ORDER
Sri Anupam Bhattacharyya, Presiding Member.
The instant complaint has been filed by the complainant u/s 12 of C.P. Act, 1986 praying for an order of direction upon the OP to pay 1/3 of the matured amount i.e. Rs.32,073/- to the petitioner and also go give an order regarding compound interest @ 10% p.a. on and from 24.1.11 and also Rs.50,000/- as compensation as well as harassment and also mental agony and also Rs.20,000/- for travelling allowance from the house of the petitioner to the office of the OP and Rs.10,000/- for cost and damages.
The complainant’s case, in brief, is that on 24.01.2006 the complainant took two policies bearing Nos. 424993185 and 424993186 from OP-LICI for assured sum of Rs.50, 000/- each whose matured value is Rs.96, 219/- each and on maturity the complainant will get 1/3 of the matured value which is Rs.32, 073/- and remaining 2/3 for Rs.64, 146/- would be kept for pension scheme and will get Rs.362/- as pension per month. The OP-Insurance Company maintains the terms of the policy No. 424993185 regularly. But, in respect of policy No. 424993186 the OP has communicated to the complainant that on maturity he is entitled to get only Rs.7, 592/- instead of Rs.32, 073/- without showing any reason. Local branch of the OP replied that there is instruction of their Higher Authority for paying Rs.7592/- instead of Rs.32, 073/- . The complainant did not receive the said amount of Rs.7592/- . Then, complainant has written to the Higher Authority for several times but no result. Then the complainant has been compelled to file this complaint. Hence, the instant complaint.
The written version filed by the OP-Insurance Company, in brief, is that there is no cause of action, the case is not maintainable and the case is barred by principles of waiver, estoppels and acquiescence. The complaint is to prove the case and has prayed for leave to file additional written version, if necessary. Hence, the instant written version.
Decision with reasons.
Point Nos. 1 to 3.
All the three points are taken together for the sake of convenience.
During the hearing of argument Ld. Advocate for the OP has not raised any objection against those three points.
Considering the material on record, we do not find anything adverse against those three points and as such all those three points are disposed of in favour of the complainant.
Point No.4.
This point is whether the case is barred by law of limitation.
This case is for payment of mature value of Insurance Policy.
The impugned policy was matured on 24.1.11 and this case has been filed on 14.11.13. Ld. Lawyer for the OP has raised objection regarding the point that on 18.06.2013 for the first time the complainant approached the OP Company which is beyond the period of limitation and also the complainant filed this case on 14.11.2013 which is beyond the period of limitation.
In this regard the Ld. Lawyer for the complainant has advanced argument referring a letter written by the complainant addressing to the OP on 18.06.2013 wherein the remark of the OP’s Office has been pointed out by him. The Sr. Branch Manager, LICI, Berhampore Branch on the letter dt. 26.08.13 of the complainant has given a note on the self same date that as per DO/IT & EZO/IT the matter is pending with EZ/IPP Cell. So another 10/15 days may require to settle the case.
Relying upon this documents it is crystal clear that after getting that note ,the complainant filed this case . That being so, we can safely conclude that the case is not barred by law limitation. As such this point is also disposed of in favour of the complainant.
Point Nos. 5 & 6.
Both these points are taken together for the sake of convenience.
The complainant’s main case is for payment of Rs.32, 073/- the 1/3 rd of matured value as per terms and for compensation and other reliefs.
The complainant’s case, in brief, is that on 24.01.2006 the complainant took two policies bearing Nos. 424993185 and 424993186 from OP-LICI for assured sum of Rs.50, 000/- each whose matured value is Rs.96, 219/- each and on maturity the complainant will get 1/3 of the matured value which is Rs.32, 073/- and remaining 2/3 for Rs.64, 146/- would be kept for pension scheme and will get Rs.362/- as pension per month. The OP-Insurance Company maintains the terms of the policy No. 424993185 regularly per month.
Admittedly, the complainant took two policies having Nos. 424993185 and 424993186 In respect of policy No. 424993185 the complainant has got after maturity Rs. 32,073/- and regularly getting pension of Rs.362/- out of the remaining amount of Rs.64,146/- which has been transferred to pension scheme as per terms of policy.
In respect of policy No. 424993186 after maturity the complainant has not got Rs.32,073/- But, in respect of policy No. 424993186 the OP has communicated to the complainant that on maturity he is entitled to get only Rs.7, 592/- instead of Rs.32, 073/- without showing any reason. Local branch of the OP replied that there is instruction of their Higher Authority for paying Rs.7592/- instead of Rs.32, 073 without showing any reason.
In this respect the complainant’s case is that on query the OP has replied that the same has been done as per instruction of their higher authority.
But, during hearing no evidence as well as any explanation has come before this Forum about such decision as to entitlement of Rs.7,592/- only instead of Rs.32,073/-, whereas in the identical policy the complainant has got Rs.32,073/-.
Even the OP has not given any explanation in this regard in its written versions.
In the written argument as well as during hearing argument the ld.lawyer for the OP-LICI has advanced argument relying upon the lastest circular No. CO/CRM/778/23 dated 10.03.2010 that the fund value as on the date of vesting will be compusarily utilize to provide the pension at the then prevailing immediate annuity rates under the relevant annuity option and for that the complainant will get Rs.7,592/- instead of Rs.32,073/-.
But this circular has no retrospective effect and as such the OP will not get any benefit of that circular to justify their payment.
From the documents filed by the complainant as to the reply of the OP against his e-mail intimating to wait for further it appears that there is no result.
That being so this Forum has no other alternative but to conclude that the complainant is entitled to get Rs.32,073/- plus interest @ 10% p.a. from 24.01.11 and cost of Rs.2,000/-.
Considering the above discussions as a whole we find that all these issues are disposed of in favour of the complainant in part and as such the complainant’s case be allowed in part.
Hence,
ORDERED
that the Consumer Complaint No. 128/2013 be and the same is allowed on merit in part
The complainant is entitled to get Rs.32, 073/- plus interest @ 10% p.a. from 24.01.11 till realization and cost of Rs.2,000/-.
The OP is directed to pay Rs.32,073/- plus interest @10% p.a. from 24.01.11 till realization and cost of Rs.2,000/- to the complainant within one month from the date of this order, failing which the OP is to pay Rs.50/-as fine per day’s delay and the amount so accumulated shall be deposited to the State Consumer Welfare Fund.
Let a plain copy of this order be made available and be supplied free of cost, to each of the parties on contest in person, Ld. Advocate/Agent on record, by hand under proper acknowledgment / be sent forthwith under ordinary post to the concerned parties as per rules, for information and necessary action.
