Orissa

Jajapur

CC/41/2021

Laxmipriya Kar. - Complainant(s)

Versus

Chief Manager,L.I.C of India,Jajpur town Branch. - Opp.Party(s)

Sri Srikanta Mohapatra & Sri Seetikantha Das.

09 Dec 2021

ORDER

                IN THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, JAJPUR.

                                                        Present:    1.Sri Pitabas Mohanty, Member,

                                                                          2.Miss Smita Ray,Lady Member.                       

                                                      Dated the 9th day of December ,2021.

                                                      C.C.Case No.41 of 2021

   Laxmipriya Kar, D/o Late Satchidananda Kar ,

   At. Jageswarpur  ,P.O. /P.S/Dist.Jajpur

                                                                                                                              …………..……Complainant.                          

            (Versus)

1.Chief  Manager, Life Insurance Corporation,Jajpur Town,

    At.Raniramachandrapur  ,P.O/P.S/  Dist.-Jajpur.

2. Branch Manager, Cuttack Central Co-operative Bank Ltd

Jajpur Town, Near medical chhak ,P.O/P.S/Dist.  Jajpur                                                                                                                                                                                       

                                                                                                                                              ……………..Opp.Parties.                                                                                                                                            

 

For the Complainant:                                        Sri  Srikanta Mohapatra, Sri S.Das,  Advocates.

For the Opp.Party: No.1                                   Sri G.C.Panda,  Advocate.

For the Opp.Party : No.2                                  Self.                                                                                                 

                                                                                                                         Date of order:  09.12.2021

SHRI PITABAS MOHANTY, PRESIDING  MEMBER .                                                  

The complainant has filed the above named consumer case against the O.ps for deficiency in services for non payment of her maturity money of her matured L.I.C policy vide policy No.597833181 which was matured in the month of July-20. During the pendency of the case the complainant filed one petition dt.08.11.2021 stating that after maturity of the policy the complainant submitted the original policy bond along with her S.B account  details mentioned in the 1^st page of the pass book, maintained at Cuttack Central Co-operative Bank Ltd, Jajpur Town. The L.I.C office,Jajpur send/ remitted the complainant’s policy matured value amounting to Rs.42,492/- to her S.B account no.1078596100 of Cuttack Central Co-operative Bank Ltd, Jajpur Town,vide UTR No.N227201215639482 dt.14.08.20 ,as provided by the complainant earlier. As the complainant did not receive her matured value of the policy, she filed the present consumer case.

            The complainant subsequently came to know that her account no. has been changed from A/C No.1078596100 to 029053096100 & her matured policy amount was kept  in the suspense account of the bank  (O.P.no.2)  due to wrong submission of A/C no. by the complainant. Accordingly, the complainant submitted the revised / changed/ corrected A/C No.029053096100 to the L.I.C office. The officer of the L.I.C, after going through the detail facts of the case, contacted/ visited the office of O.P.no.2 ,the bank .Thereafter the o.p.no.2 the bank credited the matured amount of Rs42,492/- in the complainant’s account bearing No.029053096100 on 05.04.21. After crediting the amount, the o.p.no.2 again on 08.04.21 debited / reversed the aforesaid amount from the account of the complainant without her knowledge & without giving any prior notice, which amount to deficiency of service on the part of O.p.no.2, as  stated by the complainant. Again the complainant on 18.11.2021 filed a petition/ rejoinder to the written statement submitted by O.p.no.2 ,after receipt of petition copy of the complainant dt.08.11.2021  and notice dt.11.11.2021 . In the petition the complainant has stated that though the O.p.no.2 had received the commission’s notice earlier but now he is telling lie not to have received the earlier notice for which he is to be punished as per law and the complainant is entitled to pay interest from 08.04.21 to 15.11.21 , the day on which the complainant’s matured value of the policy was again credited to her A/C .

            The O.p.no.1 (L.I.C) appeared though their learned advocate and filed their written version stating that as per the A/C no. submitted by the complainant they have remitted the matured value of the complainant’s policy  vide RTGS bearing UTR No. N227201215639482 dt.14.08.20 to the O.p.no.2 .The O.P.no.1 had not given any objection to the petition  filed by the complainant, though received copies.

            The O.p.no.2 though not appeared earlier but appeared personally on 16.11.21 and filed his written statement .In the written statement the O.p.no.2 stated that he has not received any notice of this commission earlier. It is admitted that the L.I.C remitted the matured value of the complainant amounting to Rs.42,492/- . Due to mismatch of the complainant’s accounts number  the amount was kept in the suspense account of O>p.no.2. After receipt of letter from the commission, this O.P.no.2 able to know the correct account  of the complainant and accordingly again credited Rs.42,492/- the maturity value of the LIC policy in her correct A/C No.029053096100 on 15.11.2021 . Hence the dispute be dropped.

            From the above facts and circumstances of the case it is to be seen who are deficient in service.

            It is not in dispute that the complainant had availed  one L.I.C policy bearing No.597833181 under the O.P.no.1 and the policy was matured for Rs.42,492/- . After maturity of the policy of the complainant the L.I.C remitted the maturity amount to the A/C of the complainant , as per the account , to o.p.no.2 .As there is a mis match in the complainant’s A/C no. ,the O.P.no.2 kept the maturity amount of the complainant in their suspense account since 08/20 . After filing of case and during the pendency of the case when the defect and fault  was detected the O.p.no.1 went to O.p.no.2 and took initiative to transfer / credit the maturity amount of the complainant to her correct A/C No.029053096100 from the suspense account of O.p.no.2. Accordingly the O>p.no.2 credited the matured amount of the complainant to her account No.029053096100 on 05.04.2021 . Hence under the above pretext we do not find that the O.p.no.1 L.I.C is deficient in service.

            The next question arises whether the O.p.no.2 ( Central Co-operative Bank) is deficiency in service. It is not in dispute that as per the A/C statement submitted by O.p.no.2 on 16.11.2021 and the photo copy of the pass book filed on behalf of the complainant, an amount of Rs.42,492/- was credited on 05.08.2021 in the A/C  of the complainant . It is also not in dispute that again the said amount was debited from the complainant’s  account . We are unable to understand under what circumstances the O.p.no.2 again debited the same amount from the complainant’s account on 08.04.21 without giving any prior information / notice to the account holder. No  explanation is received / coming from the side of O.p.no.2 . Under the above scenario we hold that O.p.no.2 is deficient in service by debiting the Rs.42,492/- on 08.04.21 from the account of the complainant, whimsically / arbitrarily/ illegally without any prior intimation to the account holder. So, the O.P.no.2 is liable to pay compensation to the complainant.

            The next question arises whether the O.p.no.2 is justified in stating  that he has not received any notice from this commission for appearance prior to letter no.856 dt.11.11.2021 accusing this commission. In this regard we have verified the case record and observed  that O.p.no.2 had received the original notice of this commission on 24.03.2021, for appearance as per the A.D available  in record. The O.P.no.2 has deliberately taken the shelter of false hood. Being a responsible officer, he should not have taken such plea without verifying his official record and it is not expected  from O.p.no.2 . Taking into consideration of the facts and circumstances  of the case we do not want to draw any adverse inference against him and want to caution the O.p.no.2 not to make such type of statements in future.

                                                O R D E R

            The O.p.no.2 is directed to pay an interest @9% to the complainant on her maturity value of Rs.42,492/ from 08.04.2021 to 15.11.2021 i.e the day on which the maturity amount of the complainant was again credited in her A/C for illegal withdrawn / debit.

            The O.p.no.2 is  also directed to pay an interest @ 9% to the complainant on her maturity value of Rs.42,492/ from 14.08.20 to 04.04.2021 as they have utilized her maturity amount in their business ( additional relief though not prayed for , in view of decision  by Hon’ble National Commission in between Dist.Manager,Telephones Patna & another versus Dr.Tarun Bharthuar & another decided in First Appeal No.52 of 1990 decided on 09.11.1990)

The aforesaid amount is to be paid to the complainant by the O.P.no.2 within a month  after receipt of this order, failing which the petitioner can take steps as per law.

 

                    This order is pronounced in the open Forum on this the 9th day of  December,2021. under my hand and seal of the Commission .