OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KAMRUP,GUWAHATI
C.C. 59/13
Present:-
1)Md.Sahadat Hussain, A.J.S. - President
2)Smti Archana Deka Lahkar - Member
3)Md Jamatul Islam - Member
Sri Hulas Chandra Jain - Complainant
R/O-C/O- Niraj Enterprise,
R.K.Mour Market,
T.R.Phukan Road,
Fancy Bazar,Guwahati- 781001
-vs-
1) Chairman - Opp.Parties
Life Insurance Corporation of India,
Colaba , Mumbai-400005.
2) Life Insurance Corporation of India,
Divisional Office, Guwahati,
S.S.Road,Fancy Bazar,
Kamrup,Assam
Appearance : Ld. advocate Mr. U.C.Mour for the complainant and Ld. Advocate Mr. Rakesh Sarma for opp.parties.
Date of oral argument - 20.08.18.
Date of judgment - 04.09.18.
JUDGMENT
This is a case u/s 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986
1) The complaint filed by Sri Hulas Chandra Jain against Chairman , Life Insurance Corporation of India, Mumbai and Divisional Office, LICI, Guwahati Division was admitted on 1.7.13 and notices were served on both the opp.parties and both the opp.parties also filed joint written statement on 25.4.14 and the complainant filed his evidence on affidavit and he was cross-examined by the opp.party side and thereafter, the opp.parties is allowed several chances to file their evidence, but they failed to file their evidence and accordingly, on 19.1.18 this forum passed an order for filing written argument by the parties on 27.2.18; but none of the parties filed written argument; and thereafter on 20.8.18, we, being compelled heard oral argument of Ld.advocate Mr.U.C.More for the complainant and of Ld.Advocate Mr.Rakesh Sarma for the opp.parties and today we deliver the judgment which is as below.
2) The complainant case in brief is that the complainant purchased on policy from the opp.party vide policy No. 33855323 dtd. 1.2.1979 commencing from 1.2.1979, plan of assurance 11-34, sum assured of Rs.50,000/-, mode of yearly payment date of maturity 1.2.13and he has been paying premiums regularly without default, but he received information from Opp.Party No.2 as required for alteration of plan and he applid for alteration of plan from 11 table to 14 table at his cost and Opp.Party No.2 altered the plan on 25.2.2000, and to that effect, Opp.Party No.2, where commencement remains from 1.2.1979, and new premium was enhanced to 2428 and premium was stated to be due from 1.2.2000 to 1.3.2012 and he duly paid the enhanced premium vide renewal premium receipt No. 0354315, Branch 570, GBO III dtd.25.2.2000, Tr.No.62681 and the policy number remain same. After that, the opp.parties demanded and realised from him a sum of Rs.22,944/- on account of difference arising out of alteration of table 11 to table 14 vide renewal premium receipt No. 035314 dtd. 25.2.2000, Branch 570 Tr.No. 6268 and Opp.Party No.2 sent a document to him vide No.M /022013/000083 dtd.16.11.2012 in connection with the said policy where by gross payable amount was shown as 89,800/- which includes basic amount of Rs.50,000/- and vested bonus of Rs.39,800/- and the opp.parties calculated the bonus w.e.f. 25.2.2000 which is ought to have been calculated w.e.f. 1.2.1979 (date of commencement of the policy) in view of payment of premiums w.e.f. 1.2.1979 vide aforesaid renewal premium receipt No. 0354314dtd. 25.2.2000 whereby opp.parties charged difference in premium as well as late fees w.e.f. 1.2.79 from him, and hence opp.parties are bound to pay him bonus w.e.f. 1.2.1979, which the opp.parties denied and he approached Opp.Party No.2 to pay him bonus w.e.f. 1.2.79, but opp..party denied to pay him bonus w.e.f. 1.2.1979. Finding no other way, he sent legal notice demanding payment of bonus w.e.f. 1.2.1979 vide legal notice dtd. 11.2.2013; and the opp.parties by replying to the legal notice, vide their notice dtd.23.3.13, have categorically admitted that the alteration has been done on 1.2.2000 and they received premium w.e.f. 1.2.1979 and the alteration effected from 1.2.1979. Therefore, the opp.parties cannot refuse his claim . Therefore, he prays for directing the opp.parties to pay him bonus from 1.2.1979 to 1.2.2013 and Rs.50,000/- as compensation for causing and financial sufferings to him with interest alongwith cost of the complaint.
3) The pleading of Opp.Party No.1 & 2 in brief is that the instant complaint is not maintainable; The complaint is barred by limitation; There is no cause of action for the instant case . The complaint is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties . The policy holder on 4.2.2000 informed them he desired for alteration of plan No.11(without profits) to plan No.14 (with profits); and on receipt of his application, the alteration is made. But altered premium was erroneously calculated to be Rs.2428/-yearly from due date 02/2000. The difference of premium was calculated wrongly by their office as Rs.2,944/- for the period from 02/1979 to 02/1999 and the amount was accepted wrongly, but in letter dtd. 24.2.2000 given to the complainant by their branch did not mention the date from which the policy was shared for the profits. Opp.Party No.2 sent documents to the complainant vide No.M/022013/00083 dtd. 16.11.12 in connection with the said policy whereby gross amount payable has been shown as Rs.89,800/-. The policy participates in the profits from the date of alteration 02/2000) and not from (02/1979) (original date of alterated plan and vested bonus) accordingly calculated at Rs.39,800/- and was paid . On detection of wrong calculation of premium and wrong acceptance of difference of premium, their branch on 27.12.2004 informed the complainant that actual premium was Rs.2479/- instead of Rs.2428/- which was wrongly intimated to him earlier. Accordingly a cheque bearing No. 1011393 (Vr. No. 04439 (dated 20.12.2004) for Rs.21,692/- (Rs.20,250/- ) + interest 1692/- less amount @ 50 X 5 for the period from 2000 to 2004) towards the refund of amount received by their branch was sent by post on 27.12.2004 and when the said cheque remained uncashed and got stale, a fresh cheque bearing No.019353 dtd. 22.5.2003 against the said stale cheque and another cheque No.019452 dtd. 17.6.2013 for payment interest Rs. 15,421/- were sent by them to the complainant vide registered post No.17.6.13. They are not liable to pay bonus w.e.f. 1.2.1979 as it was not payable as per rule of the corporation. The new rate of the premium was payable on the date of alteration and not from the date of commencement of the old plan. The difference of premium wrongly collected was refunded with interest and hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed.
4) We have perused the pleading of the complainant and the opp.party. We have perused the evidence as well as the argument of both sides’ ld counsels and it is found that both sides’ admitted that the complainant had purchased one policy vide No. 33855323 dtd. 01.02.1979 which commenced from 1.2.79 from the opp.party, of which the plan of assurance was 11-34, sum assured of Rs.50,000/- and mode of payment yearly date of maturity 1.2.13 and he was paying the premium regularly without any default; and on information from Opp.Party No.2 as required for alteration for plan, he applied for alteration of plan from 11 table to 14 table at his cost and the opp.party altered the plan on 25.2,2000 and Opp.Party No.2 issued him a document in Form No. 3546 vide GDO/III dtd.25.2.2000, where by the date of commencement remains from 1.2.1979 and new premium was enhanced to Rs.2428 and the premium was due from 1.2.2002 to 1.2.2012 and he paid the premium in the enhanced rate vide receipt No. 0354315, branch 570, GBO III dtd.25.2.2000 Tr.No.62681, policy No.33855323 , total premium paid Rs.2428, but opp.party demanded from him Rs.22,944 as difference arising out of alteration of table vide premium receipt No. 354314 dtd. 25.2.2000 , branch 570, Tr.No.6268 vide their document No.M/02201 dtd.000083 dtd.16.11.2012 in connection with the said policy where gross payable amount shown Rs.89,800/- which includes basic amount of Rs.50,000/- vested bonus of Rs.39,800/-.
5) The complainant’s plea is that he is entitled to get bonus from 1.2.1979 as he had paid premium with effect from 1.2.79 and as the opp.parties charged difference in premiums as well as late fees w.e.f. 1.2.1979 from him, but the plea of the opp.party side is that on the request of the complainant, the policy of the complainant was altered from plan No.11 to plan No.14, but all the premiums were erroneously calculated to be Rs.2428/- yearly from due date 02/2000 and complaint was asked to deposit the dues amount of Rs.22,944 /- from the period w.e.f. 02/1979 to 1999 and the amount was accepted wrongly by them from the complainant and that also participates the profits from the date of alteration 2/2000 not from original date of the policy (02.09.79) and accordingly the vested bonus was calculated at Rs.39,800/-. In this case, the complainant demanded from the opp.parties payment of bonus against his policy from 1.2.79 to 1.2.2013 and compensation of Rs.50,000/- for mental and financial sufferings and interest on balance amount of bonus as well as cost of the proceeding and but the complainant states neither in his complaint nor in his evidence what amount of bonus he is entitled to get back from the opp.parties. The opp.parties plea is that the complainant is entitled to get the bonus from the date of alteration from the complaint of the policy, which is from 2/2000, and before that policy was of plan of without bonus.
6) We have perused original policy (Ex-1) and found that the said policy was effective from 1.2.79, premium was yearly Rs.1415.50 date of maturity 1.2.12 and matured amount was 50,000/-, but policy was without bonus. We have also perused alteration of plan assured by opp.party vide GBO/III, 25th Feb/2000 and it is found that alteration of plan was made from 11 table to 14 table of the said policy and premium is payable from 1.2.2000 to 1.2.2012 at the rate of @Rs.2428/- yearly. From Ex.2, it is seen that the complainant paid the premium at the alterated rate from 2/2000. Thus, it is crystal clear that the complainant did not pay the alteration premium w.e.f. 1.2.79. From Ex.3, it is seen that the complainant deposited Rs.22,944/- as difference of premium @ Rs. 2428/- from 2/1979 to 2/1999, which, the opp.party states that they returned said amount to the complainant as they had erroneously claimed the same. In the cross examination CW.1 states that the opp.party side sent Rs.21692/- to him as refund of money against deposited premium through cheque but he has not encashed . The complainant is found not filing the cheque he quotes in this case. After perusing the complaint itself, it is found that in the complaint, no where, the complainant states that the opp.party refunded Rs.21,692/- as a refund of money against deposited premium through a cheque, but he has not encashed it. The first part of the version of the complainant must be held to the true, but his version that he has not encashed the said cheque cannot held to be true version. In such premise it shall be presumed that the amount of excess premium, which, the opp.party admittedly wrongly calculated i.e. Rs.22,944/- has already been refunded to the complainant by the opp.parties through a cheque and he has received the cheque and also encashed it, meaning thereby that the excess premium calculated at the altered rate in “ table 14” w.e.f. 1.2.1979 to 1.2.1999 which is Rs.22,944/- was already refunded to the complainant by the opp.parties and thereby the policy in “plan 14 “ become effective from 25.2.2000. It is both sides admitted fact that the original policy which was under Table No. 11 was a non bonus policy and after alteration said policy on 25.2.2000 it become a bonus policy under Table No. 14. So, in such circumstances the complainant cannot claim bonus for the period w.e.f. 1.2.79 to 1.2.99. He can claim bonus from 25.2.2000 till 1.2.2013 (Date of maturity.) The complainant is found not stating anything whether he was paid maturity amount as well as the bonus w.e.f. 25.2.2000 to 1.2.2013. Thus, in such situation it must be presumed that, the maturity amount as well as the bonus w.e.f. 25.2.2000 to 1.2.2013 have already been paid to the complainant by the opp.parties.
In the prayer portion the complainant prays to the Forum to direct the opp.party to pay the bonus with effect from 1.2.2000 to 1.2.2013 and to pay compensation of Rs.50,000/-/- for causing financial loss and mental agony to him. The opp.party in their written statement states that they have calculated the vested bonus from 2/2000 as Rs.39,800/- they paid the said amount and thereby no amount is outstanding as bonus in favour of the complainant . After perusing the complaint, we have found that in para No. 10 the complaint states that the respondent also promised to solve the disputes amicably , but they did not made any progress the balance bonus amount which the complainant is legally entitled. This version of the complainant infers that, the opp.party has already paid the maturity value of the policy as well as bonus w.e.f. 2/2000 to 2/2013 (Date of maturity). In the above discussion we have already found that the complainant is not entitled to get bonus w.e.f. 1.2.79 to 1.2.99 having the policy was a non bonus policy (Table No. 11) and the wrongly realised excess amount of premium have already been refunded by the opp.party. Therefore, we hold that the opp.parties are justified in not paying bonus w.e.f. 1.2.79 to 1.2.99 and thereby, they committed no deficiency of service towards the complainant.
7) Summarizing our discussion as above, we hold that the complainant has no cause of action for filing the instant complaint against the opp.parties. Hence the complaint is dismissed on contest.
Given under our hands and seal on this 4th September ,2018.
(Smt Archana Deka Lahkar) (Md.Jamatul Islam) (Md.Sahadat Hussain) Member Member President
