D.O.F:16/06/2022
D.O.O:23/04/2024
IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KASARAGOD
CC.124/2022
Dated this, the 23rd day of April 2024
PRESENT:
SRI.KRISHNAN.K : PRESIDENT
SMT.BEENA.K.G : MEMBER
Kamalakshi M.
W/o Damodharan
Manakkad Veedu
Pollapoyil
Kodakkad P.O.
Kasaragod – 671310. : Complainant
And
- Dhanalekha P.V.
LIC Agent
Anikady
Kadakad post, 671310.
Kasaragod.
(Adv: Shyam Prasad P.V.)
- LIC of India
Micro Insurance Department
Jeevan Prakash,
P.B. no. 177, Kozhikode.
(Adv: A. Radhakrishnan) : Opposite Parties
ORDER
SMT.BEENA.K.G : MEMBER
The brief facts of the case of the complainant is that, the complainant had taken a policy from agent of opposite party no.2, one Miss. Dhanalekha (opposite party no. 1) on 28/03/2009, by which she has to pay 12 quarterly installments of Rs.500/-. The opposite party no.1 was collecting premiums from the complainant and paid it to opposite party no.2. After paying the first 12 installments, the opposite party no.1 stopped collecting premiums from the complainant. When the complainant demanded for the policy amount after few years, the opposite parties were not ready to give a proper answer. The agent Dhanalekha had given mobile number of one Abdulla, as per his direction, all required documents sent to opposite party. But even after repeated requests, the collected amount is not returned to the complainant. According to the complainant, the agent, opposite party no. 1 has collected 12 installments from the complainant directly. But when the complainant enquired in the insurance office, it is informed that only first few installments were paid and the policy bond is taken from the office. Thereafter no instalment is paid as per office records.
The opposite party no. 1 admitted the Micro Insurance Policy obtained by the complainant from her as mentioned in the compliant. The opposite party was collecting amount from policy holders and paid the amount to Micro Insurance Corporation of India at Kanhangad. She used to enter payments in the policy holder’s passbook which were duly signed by her. Some of the policy holders stopped paying premium as they do not want to continue policy. The Micro Insurance Corporation of India is solely responsible for the deficiency in service if any. The opposite party was working under the Micro Insurance Corporation as a dutiful agent. She canvased and collected money from policy holders, most of them are relatives, neighbors and friends. Due to negligent act from the part of the Micro Insurance Corporation of India, the opposite party no. 1 suffered loss of reputation among general public. The opposite party no. 1 is not liable to pay any compensation to the complainant as there is no deficiency of service from her part. She suffered great mental pain and assessing the damage of Rs. 2,00,000/-. According to opposite party no. 1, this complaint is barred by limitation and also bad for non-joinder of necessary party.
According to opposite party no. 2, the complaint is not maintainable against them. The complainant has approached this Hon’ble Commission by suppressing real facts and by averring misleading statements. Opposite party no.2 admitted that complainant is a policy holder of policy bearing No. 796082200. The complainant had paid premium under the policy for a period of 1 year 9 months only. As per the policy conditions, the policy holder is entitled to get reduce paid up value in case where at least 2 full years premium has to be deposited. Since the complainant has not paid 2 full year premium, this opposite party has no obligation to refund the premium paid by the complainant. The averments in the complaint that the complainant had paid 12 installments at the rate of 500 and after payment 12 installments Micro Insurance agent, ie, opposite party no.1 has not turned up and hence she could not pay the premium amount are not within the knowledge of this opposite party and hence this opposite party has no responsibility in such allegations. Similarly other allegations that when the complainant asked to return the amount paid, opposite party no. 1 made lame excuses and asked to contact one Mr. Abdulla who is another agent and upon contact, he asked to submit all the documents and agreed to credit the amount are also not known to this opposite party. Hence it is denied. The Micro Agents are the NGOs appointed by opposite party no. 2 for Micro Insurance business. But this opposite party has no connection with the person appointed by Micro Insurance Agent Bharath Sevak Samaj. This opposite party has no connection with opposite party no.1 and her promise and activities. There is no privity of contract between first opposite party and 2nd opposite party. It is the first opposite party who is responsible to disclose what happened to the amount handed over to her and it is her responsibly to disclose what is transferred between complainant and first opposite party. Therefore, the complaint may be dismissed with compensatory cost.
The complainant filed proof affidavit in lieu of chief examination and the documents produced are marked as Ext. A1 policy and Ext. A2 passbook. The complainant is cross examined by opposite party No. 1 & 2. The opposite party No. 1 & 2 filed chief affidavit, and their documents Ext. B1 to B3 marked. Ext. B1 is the proposal form of the complainant, Ext. B2 is the copy of the policy and Ext. B3 is the premium paid details along with certificates. The opposite parties no. 1 and 2 are not cross examined by the complainant. The complainant filed IA to exonerate opposite party no.2 from liability. Both sides heard and documents perused. The main questions raised for consideration are;
- Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of opposite party no.1 in remitting the collected amount from the complainant to opposite party no. 2?
- Whether the complainant is entitled for relief?
- If so, what is the relief?
The case of the complainant is that, she had joined in a Micro Insurance Policy scheme, as per the terms and conditions, she has to pay 12 quarterly installments of Rs. 500/-. But the agent failed to pay the entire amount collected from her to the Insurance Company, opposite party no. 2. After paying 12 instalments of Rs. 500/-, the opposite party no.1 stopped collecting money from the complainant. When the complainant demanded for the repayment of the policy amount after completion of tenure, the opposite parties evaded from repayment.
Opposite party no.1 raised a contention in their version that the complaint is barred by limitation. But on verifying the policy document Ext.A1, date of maturity of policy is shown as 28/03/2023, ie, last year. This complaint is filed on 16/6/2022. So, the complaint is not barred by limitation. Another contention raised by opposite party No. 1 is that the complaint is bad for non-joinder of necessary party. But not mentioned who is that necessary party abandoned from party array in this case. As per the complaint, the complainant had entrusted policy premiums with opposite party No.1 and opposite party No.1 paid some of the instalments to opposite party No.2 Insurance Company. Both are in the opposite party’s array and they are the necessary parties as per the facts of this case. So, the contentions raised by opposite party no. 1 is not sustainable.
The complainant had produced Ext. A1 policy, Ext.A2 passbook issued by Insurance company. As per Ext.A2 Passbook, 12 installments are entrusted with opposite party No.1. But as per the memo of the complainant, opposite party No. 2 received only Rs. 3,000/- from the complainant. The complainant had filed a petition on 31/05/2023 stating that dispute with opposite party no. 2 is settled and prayed to exonerate opposite party no.2 from liability. Hence opposite party No. 2 is exonerated from liability. The complainant had entrusted monthly instalments with opposite party No.1, the agent, so it is her liability to compensate the monitory loss and mental agony undergone by the complainant due to her deficiency in service and malpractice. While perusing the affidavit of the complainant, Ext.A2 document and the affidavit and the version filed opposite party no. 2, it is clear that there is deficiency in service and unfair practice on the part of opposite party no.1. Due to the deficiency in service on the part of opposite party no.1, the complainant had undergone untold miseries. The opposite party no.1 is bound to compensate the same.
The prayer of the complainant is to refund the paid instalments with interest, cost and compensation. As the liability against opposite party no.2 is exonerated and opposite party no.1 has received the quarterly premiums from the complainant, but was failed to pay the entire amount to opposite party no.2 Insurance Company, opposite party no.1 is liable to refund the collected amount with interest, cost and compensation. The complainant had paid a total amount of Rs. 6000/- out of which Rs. 3000/- is paid to opposite party no. 2. Even though Rs. 3,000/- was collected from the complainant by opposite party no.1, she failed to deposit it with opposite party no.2. Interest is calculated from the last date of payment onwards. The last date of payment as per Ext. B3 is 31/3/2009. Considering the facts of this complaint and situation of the complainant, we holds that, the complainant is entitled for a compensation of Rs. 15,000/- from opposite party no.1 with the paid amount, that is, Rs. 3,000/-. Rs. 3,000/- will carry interest from the date of 31/3/2009.
Therefore, the complaint is partly allowed, directing opposite party no.1 to refund Rs. 3,000/- (Rupees Three thousand only) with interest at the rate of 9% from 31/3/2009 till disbursement with a compensation of Rs. 15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen thousand only) along with a cost of Rs. 3,000/- (Rupees Three thousand only) to the complainant within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER PRESIDENT
Exhibits
A1 – Policy
A2 – Passbook
B1 – Proposal form of the complainant
B2 – Copy of the policy
B3 – Copy of the premium paid details along with certificate
Cross examination
PW1 – Kamalakshi
Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER PRESIDENT
Forwarded by Order
Assistant Registrar
JJ/
