IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ALAPPUZHA
Tuesday the 31st day of May, 2016
Filed on 01.04.2015
Present
1. Smt. Elizabeth George (President)
2. Sri. Antony Xavier (Member)
3. Smt. Jasmine D (Member)
in
CC/No.107/2015
Between
Complainant:- Opposite parties:-
Sri. N. Sreekumaran Nair 1. The Branch Manager
Choozhekattu Veedu L.I.C. of India, Branch No.I
Amayida, Ambalappuzha P.O. Vellakkinar, Alappuzha
Alappuzha – 688 565
2. The Senior Divisional Manager
Divisional Office, LIC of India
M.G. Road, Ernakulam
(By Adv. P.K. Mathew – for
Opposite parties 1 and 2)
3. The Area Manager
Food Corporation of India
District Office, Alappuzha
O R D E R
SMT. JASMINE D. (MEMBER)
The brief facts of the complaint are as follows:-
The complainant was an employee of Food Corporation of India., Alappuzha. On 25.12.2004 he took voluntary retirement from the service. The complainant availed a policy from LIC., Vellakkinar branch vide No.780838999. The said policy has got matured in the year 2005. LIC has sent the maturity amount of Rs.15,000/- to the complainant in the address of the FCI., Alappuzha under the belief that the complainant is working at FCI., Alappuzha. Since the complainant was not working there at that time, the cheque was redirected to LIC. It is on 4.3.2015 after 10 years the LIC has intimated the complainant that the policy got matured and transferred an amount of Rs.15,000/- to the account of the complainant. According to the complainant, LIC has kept the cheque for a period of 10 years. The complainant sustained much mental agony and financial loss. Hence filed this complaint.
2. Notices were served to the opposite parties. All the opposite parties appeared before the Forum and filed their version.
3. The version of the 1st and 2nd opposite parties are as follows:-
It is true that the complainant herein held the policy numbered 780838999. The policy was issued with date of commencement 28.01.1997 for Rs.50,000/- sum assured. The 2nd survival benefit fell due on 28.01.2005. As the policy was under Salary Saving Scheme (SSS) the cheque was sent on his office address ie. Food Corporation of India, Alappuzha in 2005 as per the records with the opposite parties. The complainant himself has admitted that the cheque was returned by his employer who would have been fully aware of the address and other contact particulars of recently retired personnel. As has been admitted by the complainant, the change in address after Voluntary Retirement Scheme (VRS) was not brought to the notice of the 1st opposite party. It is respectfully submitted that the Survival Benefit cheque was sent to the complainant on the address furnished by him. The complainant policy holder never informed the change in address to the first opposite party. The opposite party has rightly and promptly sent the cheque on the address given by him. It is only due to lapse on the part of the complainant he did not receive the envelope and hence he cannot turnaround and blames opposite parties. Thus it can be seen that there is no defective service or deficiency. The complainant has surrendered the policy on 2.1.2006 without indication anything as to non receipt of survival benefit amount. There is no defective service or deficiency on the part of the opposite parties. The complainant has no cause of action against opposite parties. The complainant is not eligible for any relief from the opposite parties, hence the complaint may be dismissed.
4. The version of the 3rd opposite party is as follows:-
The complainant was an employee of the 3rd opposite party and he had voluntarily retired from his services on 25.12.2004. The organization of the 3rd opposite party is an autonomous corporation under the Central Government. The employees of the 3rd opposite party are not covered any pension scheme administered directly by the 3rd opposite party and hence once all the terminal retiral benefits are settled and released finally to the retired person the 3rd opposite party is not required to keep any personal records and present address of the retired employees. The complainant having retired on 25.12.2004, the 3rd opposite party promptly released all his terminal benefits. The complainant did not keep the 3rd opposite party informed of any of his pending claims with the 1st opposite party at any time. The 3rd opposite party is not aware of any LIC policy held by the complainant after his retirement. Nor the complainant at any time informed the 3rd opposite party that he has submitted his address at his work place to the LIC, it was also incumbent on the complainant to promptly informed the LIC. It is normal approved procedure to return any communication to addressees who are not with the office of this opposite party to the senders. This established procedure is followed to ensure that the communication is not lost sight of and the concerned parties are able to take appropriate steps to deliver it. If at all there is any delay in releasing the proceeds of the policy to the complainant it is a matter to be settled between the 1st and 2nd opposite parties and the complainant and the third opposite party is no way connected with the subject matter of this complaint. The 3rd opposite party may therefore kindly be discharged from the list of opposite parties. 4. The complainant was examined as PW1. The documents produced were marked as Ext.A1 to A6. The opposite parties filed proof affidavit. No documents were marked on the side of the opposite parties.
5. Considering the allegations of the complainant and contentions of the opposite parties the Forum has raised the following points for consideration:-
1) Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties?
2) Whether the complainant is entitled to get any reliefs prayed for?
6. Point Nos.1 and 2:- The case of the complainant is that while he was working at the 3rd opposite party FCI., Alappuzha he availed a policy under Salary Saving Scheme and he has given his office address to the opposite parties 1 and 2. On 25.12.2004 he took voluntary retirement from the service. On 28.1.2005 LiC has sent a cheque of Rs.15,000/- as the 2nd money back benefit to the complainant at his office address. Since the complainant was not working in FCI., Alappuzha at that time, the same was returned to the LIC. The complainant surrendered the policy on 2.1.2006, at that time the complainant was unaware of the 2nd money back benefit and the complainant came to know about it only when the opposite parties 1 and 2 have transferred the amount of Rs.15,000/- to the complainant’s account on 6.3.2015. According to the complainant, LIC has kept his cheque for a period of 10 years. Hence filed this complaint.
7. The complainant was examined as PW1. The documents produced were marked as Exts.A1 to A6. Ext.A1 is the order of FCI dated 8.3.1999, Ext.A2 is the letter dated 8.7.2015 issued by the complainant, Ext.A3 is the copy of pass book, Ext.A4 is the copy the letter dated 7.11.1997 issued from the Canara Bank, Ext.A5 is the statement of account of Sreeja.S. and Ext.A6 is the copy of the leaflet of Logarithms Antilogarithms Mathematical & Statistical Tables.
8. The allegations of the complainant against the 3rd opposite party is that the 3rd opposite party has returned the article to the LIC. According to the complainant they should redirect it to the complainant’s home address. Admittedly the complainant took VRS in the year 2004. The LIC has sent the cheque in the year 2005 and at that time the complainant ceases to be an employee of 3rd opposite party. So in our view 3rd opposite party is not obliged to redirect the article to the house address of the complainant. Therefore we can’t hold that the 3rd opposite party is liable for any deficiency of service. When the complainant was cross examined by the opposite parties 1 and 2, he deposed that the address shown in the said policy is the address of the FCI. Since the house address of the complainant is not available with the LIC in the year 2005, they can’t sent the cheque to the complainant’s house address, but on 2.1.2006 when the complainant approached the 1st and 2nd opposite parties directly to surrender the policy the LIC could hand over the cheque to the complainant which was returned from FCI. Since the LIC failed to hand over the cheque to the complainant they have committed deficiency in service. Therefore the opposite parties 1 and 2 are liable to pay interest for the amount of Rs.15,000/- from the date of surrender to the date of transfer of the amount ie. from 2.1.2006 to 6.3.2015.
In the result, the complaint is allowed. The opposite parties 1 and 2 are directed to give interest for the amount of Rs.15,000/- from 2.1.2006 to 6.3.2015 @ 9% interest per annum to the complainant. The opposite parties 1 and 2 are further directed to pay an amount of Rs.1000/- (Rupees one thousand only) towards costs of this proceedings to the complainant. The order shall be complied within one month from the date of receipt of this order.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her corrected by me and pronounced in open Forum on this the 31st day of May, 2016.
Sd/- Smt. Jasmine.D. (Member) :
Sd/- Smt. Elizabeth George (President):
Sd/- Sri. Antony Xavier (Member) :
Appendix:-
Evidence of the complainant:-
PW1 - N. Sreekumaran Nair (Witness)
Ext.A1 - Order of FCI dated 8.3.1999
Ext.A2 - Letter dated 8.7.2015 issued by the complainant
Ext.A3 - Copy of pass book
Ext.A4 - Copy the letter dated 7.11.1997 issued from the Canara Bank
Ext.A5 - Statement of account of Sreeja.S.
Ext.A6 - Copy of the leaflet of Logarithms Antilogarithms Mathematical & Statistical
Tables.
Evidence of the opposite parties:- Nil
// True Copy //
By Order
Senior Superintendent
To
Complainant/Opposite parties//S.F.
Typed by:- pr/-
Compared by:-
