Tamil Nadu

South Chennai

CC/256/2007

AR. Thenappan - Complainant(s)

Versus

Customer Relations Manager - Opp.Party(s)

S.Thirumavalavan

17 May 2018

ORDER

                                                                        Date of Filing  : 05.06.2007

                                                                          Date of Order : 17.05.2018

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, CHENNAI (SOUTH)

@ 2^ND Floor, Frazer Bridge Road, V.O.C. Nagar, Park Town, Chennai – 3.

 

PRESENT: THIRU. M. MONY, B.Sc., L.L.B, M.L.                    : PRESIDENT

                 TMT. K. AMALA, M.A., L.L.B.                                : MEMBER-I

 

C.C. No.256 /2007

 

DATED THIS THURSDAY THE 17^TH DAY OF MAY 2018

                                 

Mr. A.R. Thenappan, 

S/o. Mr. Arunachalam,

No.34/18, New No.3H,

Quanta Trinity, West Road,

CIT Nagar West,

Chennai – 600 035.                                              .. Complainant.                                                          ..Versus..

 

1. The Chairman and Managing Director,

ICICI Bank Ltd.,

ICICI Towers, Bandra Kurla Complex,

Bandra (East),

Mumbai – 400 051.

 

2. The Customer Relations Manager,

LIC of India,

Divisional Office,

Anna Salai,

Chennai – 600 002.

 

3. The Customer Relations Manager,

LIC of India,

Divisional Office,

19-A, Thakur Town,

P.B. No.2030,

Allahabad – 211 002.                                             ..  Opposite parties.

          

Counsel for complainant                     :  M/s. S. Thirumavalavan &       

                                                                another

Counsel for 1^st Opposite party            :  M/s. PL. Narayanan & others

 Counsel for 2 & 3^rd Opposite parties :  M/s. S. Venkateswaran

 

ORDER

THIRU. M. MONY, PRESIDENT

       This complaint has been filed by the complainant against the opposite parties under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 seeking the maturity value of the insurance policy Nos. 649904326 & 741260135 along with interest to the complainant, to pay a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- towards compensation for mental agony and to pay the cost of Rs.5,000/-.

1.    The averments of the complaint in brief are as follows:

The complainant submits that he has availed a Life Insurance Policy bearing No.64990326 for the assured sum of Rs.25,000/- under salary savings scheme on 20.04.1985 for 20 years  similarly, another policy No.741260351 for the same amount for Rs.25,000/- commencing from 28.3.1994 for the same 20 years when he was employed as Manager in Bank of Madura.  The maturity date for the said policy is  28.3.2019. Further the complainant submits that the Bank of Madura was merged with ICICI Bank Ltd. and the complainant was transferred to Allahabad.  The complainant requested the ICICI bank, the 1^st opposite party to retain all the policies and maintain there.   But all the polices were transferred to Allahabad except the impugned polices Nos. 64990326 & 741260351.  Further the complainant submits that he paid the premium regularly by way of bankers cheque.  The 1^st opposite party also send the cheques to the 2^nd opposite party till 30.06.2003 & 22.07.2005 respectively.   But the 2^nd opposite party has not collected the amount which amounts to unfair trade practice and deficiency in service.   The complainant sent letters to the opposite parties but the opposite parties have not come forward to rectify the demand of the complainant.  Hence the complaint is filed.

  2.   The brief averments in the written version filed by the 1^st opposite party is as follows:

The 1^st opposite party specifically denies each and every allegation made in the complaint and puts the complainant to strict proof of the same.  The 1^st opposite party states that the complainant is not a ‘Consumer’ under section 2 (1)(d) (ii) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 since this opposite parties has been paid nothing for service.  But the complainant himself employed under the 1^st opposite party and issued banker’s cheque for the impugned LIC policies under salary saving scheme is not denied.  Further the 1^st opposite party states that, this complaint is barred by limitation.  The premium paid only upto 2003.  Thereafter, the complainant has not instructed to issue bankers’ cheque.   Further the 1^st opposite party states that due bankers cheques were issued to the 2^nd opposite party and thereby, there is no deficiency on the part of the 1^st opposite party but on the part of the 2 & 3^rd opposite parties.     Hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

  3.   The brief averments in the written version filed by the 2 & 3^rd opposite parties is as follows:

The 2 & 3^rd opposite parties specifically deny each and every allegations made in the complaint and puts the complainant to strict proof of the same.   The 2 & 3^rd opposite parties state that the complainant originally employed in M/s Bank of Madura and took policies with the 2^nd opposite party under Salary Saving Scheme/ and the 1^st opposite party was paying the premium for the complainant’s policies after deducting the same from his salary.  When the complainant got transferred from one branch to another the 2 & 3^rd opposite parties duly transferred the policy on the request of the complainant and receiving premium from his employer and is duly credited towards the policy.   Hence there is no deficiency in service. Further the 2 & 3^rd opposite parties states that no such Salary Saving Scheme for the employees of ICICI Bank available with the 2 & 3^rd opposite parties.  The 2 & 3^rd opposite parties received premium only for 9 months from ICICI Bank that is from June 2000 to February 2001 and the facts were duly informed to the complainant through various communications.     Further the 2 & 3^rd opposite parties state that for the queries raised by them has not been answered either by the complainant or 1^st opposite party.  Therefore, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the 2 & 3^rd opposite parties.  Hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

4.    In order to prove the averments in the complaint, the complainant has filed proof affidavit as his evidence and documents Ex.A1 to Ex.A4 are marked.  Proof affidavit of the 1^st opposite party filed and documents Ex.B1 to B5 are filed and marked on the side of the 1^st opposite party. Proof affidavit of the 2 & 3^rd opposite parties filed and documents Ex.B6 to Ex.B8 are filed and marked on the side of the 2 & 3^rd opposite parties.  

5.     The points for consideration is:-

1. Whether the complainant is entitled the maturity value of the insurance policy nos.649904326 and 741260135 with interest as prayed for?
2. Whether the complainant is entitled for a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- towards compensation for  deficiency in service with the cost of Rs.5,000/- as prayed for?

 

 

6.     On point:

Both parties filed their respective written arguments.   Perused the records namely the complaint, written versions, proof affidavits, documents etc.  The complainant pleaded and contended that he has availed a Life Insurance Policy bearing No.64990326 for the assured sum of Rs.25,000/- under salary savings scheme on 20.04.1985 for 20 years similarly, another policy No.741260351 which is marked as Ex.A1 for the same amount for Rs.25,000/- commencing from 28.3.1994 for the same 20 years when he was employed as Manager in Bank of Madura.  The maturity date for the said policy is  28.3.2019. Further the complainant contended that the Bank of Madura was merged with ICICI Bank Ltd. and the complainant was transferred to Allahabad.  The complainant requested the ICICI bank, the 1^st opposite party to retain all the policies and maintain there.   But all the polices were transferred to Allahabad except the impugned polices Nos. 64990326 & 741260351. 

7.     Further the complainant contended that he paid the premium regularly by way of bankers cheque.  The 1^st opposite party also sent the cheques to the 2^nd opposite party vide Ex.B1 till 30.06.2003 & 22.07.2005 respectively.   But the 2^nd opposite party has not collected the amount which amounts to unfair trade practice and deficiency in service.  The opposite parties after issuing the policy without collecting the premium amount in accordance with the bankers’ cheque issued, defaulted in payment of maturity amount.    The contention of the 1^st opposite party is that the complainant is not a ‘Consumer’ under section 2 (1)(d) (ii) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 since this opposite parties has been paid nothing for service.  But the complainant himself employed under the 1^st opposite party and issued banker’s cheque for the impugned LIC policies under salary saving scheme is not denied. 

8.     Further the contention of the 1^st opposite party is that, this complaint is barred by limitation.  The premium paid only upto 2003.  Thereafter, the complainant has not instructed to issue  bankers’ cheque.  But this complaint is filed only on 05.06.2007.   On a careful perusal of the policy, the date of maturity is 20.04.2005 and another is 28.03.2019.  Further the contention of the 1^st opposite party is that as per Ex.B1, due bankers cheques were issued to the 2^nd opposite party and thereby, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the 1^st opposite party but on the part of the 2 & 3^rd opposite parties.  The contention of the 2 & 3^rd opposite parties is that the complainant originally employed in M/s Bank of Madura and took policies with the 2^nd opposite party under Salary Saving Scheme/ and the 1^st opposite party was paying the premium for the complainant’s policies after deducting the same from his salary.  When the complainant got transferred from one branch to another the 2 & 3^rd opposite parties duly transferred the policy on the request of the complainant and received premium from his employer and is duly credited towards the policy.   Hence there is no deficiency in service.   

9.     Further the contention of the 2 & 3^rd opposite parties is that no such Salary Saving Scheme for the employees of ICICI Bank available with the 2 & 3^rd opposite parties.  The 2 & 3^rd opposite parties received premium only for 9 months from ICICI Bank that is from June 2000 to February 2001 and the facts were duly informed to the complainant through various communications.   But on a careful perusal of Ex.B1, it is very clear that till August  2003 the bankers’ cheque were issued to the 2^nd opposite party.    But the 2^nd opposite party has not taken any step to encash the bankers’ cheques.   Further the contention of the 2 & 3^rd opposite parties is that for the queries raised by them has not been answered either by the complainant or 1^st opposite party.   On the other hand, the 1^st opposite party admitted that the cheques were still outstanding without clearance in his letter dated:28.02.2005 as per Ex.B1 evenafter sending the same to the 2^nd opposite party is as follows:

“Although we understand from the letter of the policy holder about the premium which he had paid through his employer to Allahabad Division but the same was not adjusted in our CBOIV Mutthigarj Branch which was earlier servicing the PA of Bank of Madura.  As per our record CBOIV Branch, Allahabad had only premium of 6 months (i.e. 6/2000 to 12/2000).

We have asked the policy holder to furnish us the details of remittances particulars from the employer of policy holder i.e. Bank of Madura / ICICI Bank that the premium from 07/1999 to 05/2000 and 01/2000 to 07/2003 has been deducted from his salary and sent to which Branch of LIC”.

 10.  Considering the facts and circumstances, it is very clear that the complainant has not produced suitable documents to prove that he has paid the premium till the date of maturity of the policy.   On the other hand, it is very clear that the bankers’ cheques issued to the 2^nd opposite party by the 1^st opposite party was not encashed proves the deficiency in service.  Since the complainant has not paid the premium till the date of maturity of the policies, the complainant is entitled only to the paid premium amount with interest along with cost.

  In the result, this complaint is allowed in part.  The opposite parties  1 to 3  are jointly and severally liable to pay the paid LIC Premium amount with interest at the rate of 9% p.a. from the date of filing of this complaint i.e. 05.06.2007 to till the date of this order to the complainant and to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) towards cost of litigation of the complaint.  In respect of all other reliefs, this complaint is dismissed.

The above amounts shall be payablewithin six weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of this order, failing which, the said amounts shall carry interest at the rate of 9% p.a. to till the date of payment.

Dictated  by the President to the Steno-typist, taken down, transcribed and computerized by her, corrected by the President and pronounced by us in the open Forum on this the 17^th day of May 2018. 

 

MEMBER –I                                                                      PRESIDENT

COMPLAINANT SIDE DOCUMENTS:

		Copy of the complainant’s letter to the LIC, Villupuram Branch with enclosures
		Copy of letter from LIC Divisional Office, Vellore to the complainant
		Copy of the Petitioner representation to the Zonal Manager, LIC Kanpur
		LIC Vellore Division Letter addressed to the complainant
		Copy of the letter from LIC of India, Vellore Division to the complainant
		Copy of complainant’s letter to the Marketing Manager, LIC Chennai
		Copy of the complainant’s letter to the ICICI Bank, Chennai
		Copy of letter from the Insurance Ombudsman, Chennai to the complainant
		Copy of complainant’s letter to the 3rd opposite party
		Copy of letter of ICICI Bank to the LIC, Allahabad
		Copy of Insurance Ombudsman U.P. letter addressed to the complainant
		Copy of complainant’s letter to the LIC, Chennai
		Copy of insurance Ombudsman, Chennai letter addressed to the complainant
		Copy of letter from LIC addressed to the complainant
		Copy of ICICI Bank’s letter to the third party opposite party
		Copy of the complainant’s letter to the Insurance Ombudsman, Chennai
		Copy of letter from the 3rd opposite party to ICICI Bank
		Copy of the complainant’s letter to the 3rd opposite party
		Copy of e-mail message from LIC to the complainant
		Copy of ICICI Bank’s letter to the 3rd opposite party
		Copy of LIC letter to ICICI Bank
		Copy of the complainant’s letter to the 3rd opposite party
		Copy of ICICI Bank’s letter to the LIC of India

 

1^ST  OPPOSITE  PARTY SIDE DOCUMENTS:  

Ex.B1	22.07.2005	Copy of letter from the ICICI Bank to the Customer Relation Manager, LIC of India
Ex.B2	14.11.2005	E-mail from the Chief Manager, ICICI Bank to the complainant
Ex.B3	25.11.2005	Copy of letter from the ICICI Bank to the Customer Relation Manager, LIC of India
Ex.B4	05.09.2006	Copy of letter from the ICICI Bank to the Customer Relation Manager, LIC of India
Ex.B5	25.09.2006	Copy of letter from the ICICI Bank to the  Executive Director (C.R.M.), LIC of India

 

2 & 3^rd OPPOSITE  PARTIES SIDE DOCUMENTS:  

Ex.B6	28.02.2005	Copy of letter by the 2nd opposite party
Ex.B7	16.02.2005	Copy of letter to the complainant by the 2nd opposite party
Ex.B8	27.09.2005	Copy of letter by the 2nd opposite party to the complainant

 

 

MEMBER –I                                                                      PRESIDENT