1. The brief history of the case of the complainant is that he is having 3 Money Bank Insurance Policies bearing No.573402720, 573400626 & 571775366 with the Ops and the premiums against the above policies were being deducted from his monthly salary in time. It is submitted that for 1st policy, the Survival Benefit (SB) of Rs.20, 000/- was due on 28.3.2015 but the Ops did not take any step for payment of said dues in spite of several requests. Similarly, in case of 2nd policy, the SB of Rs.8250/- became due but the Ops sent a cheque dt.12.3.15 for an amount of Rs.6930/- deducting Rs.1320/-. Likewise in case of 3rd policy, the SB amount of Rs.10, 000/- became due but the Ops sent Rs.8756/- deducting Rs.1244/- on 28.01.15 and in total the Ops kept pending Rs.22, 564/- from the SB in case of all the 3 policies. As the Ops did not release the above amount, the complainant alleging unfair trade practice on the part of the Ops has filed this case praying the Forum to direct the Ops to release Rs.22, 564/- and to pay Rs.30, 000/- towards compensation and costs to the complainant.
2. The Ops filed counter in joint admitting the policies obtained by the complainant and contended that in case of Policy No.573402720, the SB could not be released due to some gap premiums found in the policy and after adjustment of gaps they have released the amount during December, 2015. In case of other two policies, the Ops in the same manner contended that due to some gaps in payment of premiums they could not release the amount but after adjustment of gap premiums they have released the rest of the survival benefits in favour of the complainant and thus denying any deficiency in service on their part, the Ops prayed to dismiss the case of the complainant.
3. We have heard the matter from the parties through their respective A/Rs. The A/R for the complainant has filed a memo on 03.03.2016 intimating the Forum that the complainant after filing of this case has received Rs.22, 564/- in his bank accounts from the Ops towards rest of the benefits in respect of his policies. At the time of hearing both the A/Rs of the parties submitted that the dispute in this case has been resolved since the complainant has received his full survival benefits.
4. The A/R for the Ops submitted that the full amount could not be paid due to some gap premiums found in the policies and hence the Ops have committed no deficiency in service and prayed to dismiss the case. The A/R for the complainant submitted that actually there was no gap premium but the Ops have not properly accounted for the premiums so deducted from the salary of the complainant.
5. After careful consideration of pleadings of the parties and also after going through the record, we find no intention of the Ops to retain the benefits of the complainant but inadvertently the premiums have not been adjusted by the OPs. As such we are not inclined to award any compensation in favour of the complainant as prayed for. But for such non payment, the complainant has filed this case incurring some expenditure by engaging Advocate and the A/R for the complainant submitted before us for some costs to be awarded in favour of the complainant. This submission of A/R for the complainant seems to be genuine. Hence the cost of litigation is to be borne by the Ops. In our opinion, a sum of Rs.2100/- towards cost of this litigation in favour of the complainant will meet the ends of justice.
6. Hence ordered that the complaint petition is allowed in part and the OP-1 is directed to pay Rs.2100/- towards cost to the complainant within 30 days from the date of communication of this order failing which the awarded sum shall carry interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of this order.
(to dict.)
