Heard learned counsel for the appellant.
2. Captioned appeal is filed u/s 15 of the erstwhile Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter called the ‘Act’). Parties to this appeal shall be referred to with reference to their respective status before the District Forum.
3. The case of the complainant in nutshell is that the complainant had purchased three policies from the opposite parties out of which the disputed policy is 590742073. The policy was under the Salary Saving Scheme through the employer of the complainant. It is also the case of the complainant that the policy commences from 28.10.1999. It is alleged inter alia that on 28.10.2008 the policy holder approached the opposite parties to avail the maturity value against the policy due to suffering from poor condition, but his approaches were not heard. Finding no other way, the complainant filed the complaint.
4. The opposite party admitted that the policy no. 590742073 is the disputed policy, but the other two policies have already been settled. It is further submitted that the complainant had left the service under V.R.S. from March, 2003 and thereby the policy holder is not entitled to receive the entire maturity money.
5. After hearing the parties, learned District Forum have passed the following order:-
xxxxx xxxxxx
“ The O.P.No.1 and 2 are directed to pay the whole of sum of Rs. 26333/- within 30 days of receipt of the claim from the complainant in prescribed format and with requisite enclosures, failure of which shall leave the complainant to enforce the order through provisions of Section 27 and 25 of the Act.
The O.P.No.1 and 2 are hereby debarred from recovering any amount as of loan or interest thereof, if any such exists from the above amount save through procedures prescribed by laws of the land for the purpose. Pronounced in the open forum on 13th day of January, 2015.”
6. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the learned District Forum committed error in law by not considering the written version filed by the parties. It is submitted by him that there is a loan obtained by the complainant and towards loan, the interest amount is deducted and thereafter the complainant is entitled to get Rs. 5758/-. He submitted that when there is no any evidence, learned District Forum committed error in law by passing the impugned order.
7. Considered the submissions, perused the DFR and perused the impugned order.
8. It is true that the complainant has purchased a policy from the opposite parties and agreed to pay the same under the Salary Saving Scheme. It is also not in disputed that on 28.10.2008 the complainant approached the opposite parties to settle the claim. It is also not in dispute that the complainant has taken V.R.S. from the month of March, 2003. No doubt, the written version does not disclose about the lending of money to the complainant. When the complainant did not get any sort of benefits under Policy which is under the Salary Saving Scheme, the matter lies before the employer and insurer with regard to payment of premium. The complainant is in no way responsible. It is very much discussed in the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Delhi Electric Supply Undertaking Vrs. Basanti Devi & Anr., (1999) 8 SCC 299. The same is also followed in the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Chairman, Life Insurance Corporation & Ors Vrs. Rajiv Kumar Bhaskar, 2005(6) SCC 188. When admittedly the complainant took the voluntary retirement in the year 2003 and the policy commences from 1999, he is entitled to get the entire maturity value. When there is no disbursement of loan to the complainant, question of deducting the interest from the matured value does not arise.
9. Learned District Forum while passing the impugned order observed in para-6 which is as follows:-
“6. However, Lr/intimation no. M/122014/000060 dated 25.10.2014, of OP shows that Rs. 26333/- standing to the credit of the policy and a deduction of Rs.9000/- and Rs. 15803/- has been shown to be debited from the amount as loan and interest respectively. But, in nowhere in the counter or in oral argument of the OP submitted through their counsel, has referred to any loan if taken from the corporation OP by the complainant. The OP in this regard did not file even a scrap of paper to prove existence of any loan taken by complainant. Hence, to that extent, we disbelieve, if any amount is deductible from the legitimate payment under the policy. And also from the point of limitation, the OP is barred from recovery of the amount, if for any time the complainant had borrowed any money from them.
Hence the complaint is partly allowed in favour of the complainant.”
10. In view of the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Delhi Electric Supply Undertaking(supra) and Chairman, Life Insurance Corporation & Ors.(supra) and the observation at para-6 of the learned District Forum, we are not inclined to interfere with the impugned order. The impugned order is hereby confirmed.
11. The appeal is devoid of any merit and accordingly dismissed. No cost.
DFR be sent back forthwith.
Supply free copy of this order to the respective parties or the copy of this order be downloaded from Confonet or Website of this Commission to treat same as copy supplied from this Commission.
