SMT. RAVI SUSHA: PRESIDENT
Complainant filed this complaint Under Section -12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 getting a direction against the opposite party to pay the balance amount of Rs. 11000/- with the bonus for the entire period or with interest and @ 12% per annum from 01/04/2004 onwards, to pay the balance amount of Rs. 2500/- with bonus for the entire period or with interest @ 12% per annum from 01/04/2015, besides Rs. 30000/- being compensation and Rs. 5000/- as cost of the complaint.
The brief facts of complainant’s case is that the complainant had joined a Money Back Policy of the company in the year 2000. The main attraction of this policy was that the money would be released periodically, stage by stage ie in every 4 years. The monthly installments was Rs 591/-. The installment was being deducted from the salary of the complainant regularly till his retirement from service in the month of February 2003. Thereafter the monthly premium was converted into quarterly mode
-1-
and was being paid punctually in the opposite party’s office up to 2004. In 2004 (after 4 years) this complainant was eligible to get 30% of the total value ie Rs. 15000/-. But instead of that the complainant was in receipt of Rs. 4000/-. This issue was taken up by this complainant several times with the opposite parties but they did not give any answer on the subject. The policy bond was surrendered before the opposite parties at the time of collecting the first installment of maturity. Even after repeated requests the opposite parties were not returning the original policy bond. But in the meantime the policy was lapsed. It happened due to the lapse and laxity of the opposite parties. The complainant was given promises by the 2nd opposite party, apart from the assurance in the policy document that he would get all the benefits of the policy on maturity in 2015. The complainant had paid altogether Rs. 30000/-towards premium the opposite parties gave him a very megre amount of 16500/-. It was a deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of opposite parties. Hence filed this complaint for getting the relief as prayed for.
After receiving notice opposite parties filed version having contentions that the complainant is barred by limitation and is not maintainable. These opposite parties admitted that the first opposite party had issued a Jeevan Surabhi Policy Bearing No. 790737740 of which the date of commencement is 21/03/2000. Initially the premium was being remitted from salary of the complainant @ Rs. 591/- per month. Upon his retirement the payment mode was altered with effect from March 2003 to quarterly 1774/-. Under the policy if the policy holder pays the premium regularly and oblige the conditions he is entitled for survival benefit @ 30% after 4 years and another 30% on eighth year and remaining 40% on completion of policy. After 12th year no premium is payable but the policy holder is entitled for accrued bonus on completion of 15 years. It is submitted that the opposite parties had paid Rs. 15000/- being the first installment consist of 30% of the sum assured payable in the first fourth year vide cheque No. 0026675 dated 16/03/2004 and the same has been encashed by the complainant. The complainant failed to remit the premium after the above period and consequently the policy lapsed as per the terms of the policy. As these opposite party is liable to pay the paid up value with accrued bonus on completion of 15 years the same which comes to a sum of Rs. 12525/- is sent to his account vide NEFT on 21/03/2015. This opposite parties paid a total sum of Rs.
-2-
27525/- out of which 15000/- was paid 13 years ago. So the opposite parties had paid whatever sum payable to the complainant as per the policy conditions. Further opposite parties denied all other allegations in the complaint. It is stated that there is no deficiency of service on the part of these opposite parties. Hence prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.
The complainant has filed his chief affidavit and documents. He was examined as PW1 and Ext A1 to A5 were marked. On the side of opposite parties, The Legal Manager, Divisional Office LIC, Mr. C. Padmanaphan has filed his chief affidavit and documents. He was examined as DW1 and Ext B1 to B4 were marked. Further The Manger, Federal Bank, Thaliparamba was examined as a witness on the opposite side (DW2) and Ledger extract computer printout of his bank is marked as Ext B5 and Manger, Canara Bank, Thaliparamba was examined as DW3.
At the argument stage, Learned Counsels of both complainant and opposite parties filed their written argument notes. Besides both Learned Counsels made oral arguments before us. We have considered the submissions, evidences and perused the records brought before us.
The 1st plea raised by the opposite party’s Learned Counsel is that this complaint is barred by limitation on the ground that the cause of action of this case starts in the year 2004 in respect of payment of Rs. 15000/- and as per Ext B1 policy the maturity date is 21/03/2015. This complaint was filed on 27/03/2017 ie after 2 years. Opposite party’s counsel submitted that Ext A5 letter issued by the complainant to Chief Manager LIC on 04/09/2015 will not save the limitation of filing of this complaint. On perusal of records before us for clarifying this point, we can see that the opposite party had paid the benefit of the policy on maturity ie Rs. 16500/- on 12/09/2014 as per Ext A3 payment receipt. On the basis of Ext A3 receipt, the complaint is not barred by limitation. Hence the 1st plea of opposite party cannot be upheld.
The second point to be decided whether there is any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of opposite party in disbursing the bonus amount in the year 2004 and benefit of the policy on the maturity of the policy?
Opposite party admitted that they had issued a Jeevan Surabhi Money back Policy Bearing No: 790737740 to the complainant on 21/03/2000. It is also an admitted
-3-
fact that as the policy is a Money back policy the complainant is entitled for survival benefit 30% after 4 years from the commencement date and another 30% on eighth year and remaining 40% on completion of policy and further after 12th year no premium is payable but the insured is entitled for accrued bonus on completion of 15 years.
Complainant allegation is that after knowing this attracted condition, he joined in this policy. But after the successful completion of 4 years instead of getting Rs. 15000/-, he got only Rs. 4000/- from the opposite party as bonus. Complainant further alleged that the policy bond was surrendered before opposite parties at the time of collecting the first installment of Maturity and even after repeated request they did not return the original policy bond. So he could not remit the further premium amounts and thus the policy was lapsed. According to complainant he had paid altogether Rs. 30000/- towards premium but opposite parties has given only Rs. 16500/- as benefit of the policy of maturity time.
On the other hand opposite party contended that the opposite parties had paid Rs. 15000/- being the first installment as 30% of the sum assured vide cheque No: 0026675 dated 16/03/2004 and the same has been encashed by the complainant. It is further submitted by opposite parties that since the complainant failed to remit the premium after the year 2004, the policy lapsed and on completion of 15 years, as accrued bonus they paid Rs. 12525. According to them, the complainant was given the entire eligible amount and there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on their part.
On deciding this rival contentions, we have to scrutinize the material evidences brought before us and the evidences of the witnesses. Opposite party produced Exts B1 to B5 and examined two independent witnesses the Bank Mangers for proving their contentions. Ext B1 is policy, Ext B2 is letter issued by Federal Bank to The Manager, LIC of India, Thaliparamba pertaining to payment of cheque No: 26675 for Rs. 15000/- favouring C. Bhaskaran in his current account No: 828 on 05/04/2004. Ext B2 is payment voucher which shows that cheque No is 26675, payee’s name C. Bhaskaran, amount paid was Rs. 15000/- on 26/03/2004 and status shows that encashed on 05/04/2004. Ext B4 pertaining to surrender history record which shows that on 26/03/2004 payment was made in S/B account through cheque No: 26675
-4-
and amount paid was Rs. 15000/-. Ext B5 is stamen of account of Federal Bank, Thaliparamba in respect of account No- 828 of opposite party kept in that bank between the period from 26/03/2004 to 10/04/2004. On perusal of Ext B5, we can see that in transaction details on 05/04/2004 to C. Bhaskaran through cheque No: 26675 and withdrawal amount Rs. 15000/-, which was marked through DW2. The Bank Manger, Federal Bank, Thaliparamba branch, DW2 deposed before the commission that “Federal Bank, Thaliparamba imJ-bn LIC of India bpsS t]cn-epÅ 828-þmw \¼À current a/c sâ 26/03/2004 apX 10/04/2004 hsc-bpÅ ledger extract computer printout sâ km£o-I-cn¨ copybmWv CXv. Marked as Ext B5. Ext B5 {]Imcw 05/04/2004\v C. Bhaskaran F¶bm-fpsS t]cn cheque No: 26675 {]Imcw 15000/- cq] collect sNbvX-Xm-bn«v ImWmw. Rs. 15000/- LIC bpsS A/c  \n¶v Ipdhv hcp-¯n-b-Xm-bn«v ImWmw. Further opposite party has taken steps to examine Branch Manager, Canara Bank, Thaliparamba to appear with ledger statement of complainant on the year 2004 for proving account details of the complainant during 2004 to clarify the withdrawal of Rs. 15000/- by the complainant on 05/04/2004. But DW3 the Branch Manager, Canara Bank did not produce the said account ledger despite specific direction was given to DW3 by the commission. He deposed that it cannot be traced out and filed affidavit for that.
The submission put forward by the Learned Counsel of complainant that the opposite parties have miserably failed to prove that they have paid the said amount to the complainant. According to complainant, the amount was given to one Bhaskaran and the complainant has not any account with Federal Bank, Thaliparamba.
For clarifying this submission, we can reveal that in Ext B2 to B4 the transaction of Rs. 15000/- was made by opposite parties through cheque No: 26675 and payee’s name C. Bhaskaran. It can also be revealed that from DW2’s evidence, Ext B5 pertaining to the current A/C of opposite party in his bank having No: 828 and on 05/04/2004 one C. Bhaskaran withdrawed Rs. 15000/- from that account of opposite parties.
Through Ext B2 to B5 and DW2 and DW3 opposite parties tried best attempt to prove their contention. On reading those documents along with oral evidence we could reveal that the name C. Bhaskaran mentioned in Ext B2 to B5 is none other than the complainant. Here it is pertenant to be noted that the complainant did not
-5-
file his pass book before this commission. Production of his pass book could have definitely cleared the disputed point. But the complainant failed to produce said document and not produced the receipt showing that he had received only Rs. 4000/- as bonus. Further complainant failed to prove that he has remitted Rs. 30000/-as premium amount.
Hence from the available evidence we are not of the view that the opposite had paid Rs. 15000/- as bonus to the complainant on 16/03/2004 vide cheque No: 0026675 and eligible accrued bonus Rs. 12525/- on 21/03/2015. So we cannot find any unfair trade practice and deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties.
In the result, the complainant failed to prove his averments in the complaint and hence the complaint is dismissed. No order as to cost.
Exhibits
Ext A1 – LIC Policy
Ext A2 – Letter from opposite parties
Ext A3 – Letter from LIC, Kozhikode
Ext A4 – First premium receipt
Ext A5 – Copy of the letter to Chief Manager
Ext B1 – Policy
Ext B2 – Letter issued by Federal Bank
Ext B3 – Copy of voucher register
Ext B4 – Policy surrender record
PRESIDENT MEMBER MEMBER
Ravi Susha Molykutty Mathew Sajeesh K.P
-6-
