This case is coming for final hearing on 25.08.2014 in the presence of Sri V.Prabhakar Rao Misro Advocate for the Complainant and of Sri C.Shyam Sundar Rao Advocate for Opposite Parties and having stood over till this date, the Forum delivered the following:

: O R D E R :

(As per Smt. K.V.R.Maheswari, Honourable President(FAC) on behalf of the Bench)

1.     The case of the Complainant is that he is a policy holder of LIC of India bearing No.692339845 dated 07.03.1999 for Rs.1,00,000/- and it is a monthly salary deduction policy commenced on 28.03.1999 with a term of 14-12 installments premium of Rs.771/- commenced at Srikakulam Branch Office with Visakhapatnam division, the date of maturity was 28.03.2011. Subsequently, the policy was transferred to City Branch-II, Visakhapatnam.  The original policy handed over to City Branch-II, LIC of India for payment, but after some time, Complainant was informed by the concerned staff that there are some gaps of premiums, hence, the amount was not paid and asked him to come after 15 days, complainant visited several times, but there was no response.  The Complainant stated that it is a monthly salary recovery policy and Rs.771/- was deducted every month from the complainant’s salary by the employer and sending to the LIC branch and the Complainant did not receive any notice from LIC office in respect of gaps as objected by the Opposite party.  More over, the maturity date of policy is 23.08.2011, the Opposite parties received monthly subscriptions up to July’2011 from Commissioner of Police, Visakhapatnam, where the Complainant retired on 31.07.2011.  The Complainant gave all details of working places as per the gaps in the office records and requested the Opposite parties to settle the issue.  But they failed to do so.  Then, the Complainant issued a Lawyer’s notice on 01.08.2011, 15.12.2011 and 28.02.2012 to the Opposite parties to release the assured LIC policy amount + bonus amount and the same were received by the Opposite parties, but there was no response which clearly shows the irresponsibility and deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite parties.  Hence this complaint to direct the 1^st Opposite party:

a) to pay the assured amount of Rs.1,00,000/- with bonus Rs.73,500/-

b) to pay Rs.38,040/- as interest at 24% on the amount due as on 28.03.2012 and for future interest

c) to pay Rs.10,000/- for costs of the complaint and travelling expenses.

d) to pay Rs.3,855/- towards extra premium amounts received after maturity of the bond from CP’s office.

e) to pay Rs.1,00,000/- towards compensation.

2.     On the other hand, the Opposite parties filed their counter and admitted about the issuance of policy and policy No.692339845 under salary savings scheme and also admitted about the premium on the policy is being deducted from the monthly salary and remitted to the opposite parties but not regularly.  The Opposite parties pleaded that the policy holder who made payment of premiums in full without any default or gaps regularly and the policy holder was a government employee who was under constant transfers from one place to other, as per his job, has to get information from the concerned salary disbursement department with regard to the payment of policy premiums, had sought certain clarifications from the department with regard to the gaps in policy premiums.  Since, the Opposite parities could not get the correct and full information and in view of continuous demands for payment of the claim under policy No.692339845, is informed the Complainant about the said fact of non payment of premiums for the months of 1) July, 1999 2) May 2000 to December 2000 3) June 2003 to December 2003 4) January 2011 to February, 2011.  The Complainant has to co-operate with the Opposite parties in getting the problem solved but he has not done so and the documents filed by the Complainant with the Complaint have no evidence to show that the Complainant’s policy premiums for the gaps were sent to the Opposite parties’ office.  The Opposite parties stated that they are ready and willing to pay the maturity amount provided that the amounts due under the above gaps were remitted to this Opposite party’s office or otherwise, the policy deemed to be lapsed and no benefits will be paid to the Complainant refunding the amounts collected from the Complainant.  The employer of the complainant at his instructions the policy bills are remitted to the Opposite parties, but not demanded by the opposite parties for payment of policy premiums after maturity date.  Even if the amounts were sent subsequent to its maturity, the Opposite party will return to the party on claim made by them if there is no due or they will be adjusted towards the gaps under the policy and will settle the claim.  The Opposite party pleaded that the Complainant is not entitled to claim any amount.  Hence the complaint is to be dismissed.

3.     At the time of enquiry, the Complainant filed his evidence, counter affidavit and written arguments, calculation memo also filed.  Exhibits A1 to A45 are marked.  On the other hand, the 1^st opposite party filed its counter, additional counter ,affidavit and calculation memo was also filed by the Opposite parties.  No documents were marked on behalf of the Opposite parties. Heard both the counsels who reiterated their versions.

4.     In view of the respective contentions, the point that would arise for determination is:-

Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties, if so can the complainant entitle for the reliefs prayed for?

5.     The fact that as per Ex.A1 dated 28.04.1999 photo copy of LIC policy (Original is handed over to the Opposite parties) is not in dispute and the opposite parties also admitted about the premium of the policy which was deducting from the salary and remitted to the 1^st Opposite party.  Ex.A2, A3 & A4 are the letters issued by the Complainant to Opposite parties regarding the gaps of premiums which was already paid by the Complainant and about the receipt of amount by the Opposite parties even after maturity date.  Regarding that, the Complainant requested the Opposite parties to return the excess amount collected by the Opposite parties.  Exhibits A5 & A6 are the postal receipts evidencing letters issued by the Complainant to the Opposite parties.  Exhibits A7 to A29 are the salary slips of the Complainant for the recovery of the premium amount of Rs.771/- per month which clearly shows the amount paid by the Complainant through his salary.  Exhibit A30 is the status report of the policy where in clearly shows the vest bonus is Rs.58,500/-.  Exhibit A31 is the Statement issued by the Senior Branch Manager of Opposite party to the employer of the Complainant regarding the date of commencement, Plan in terms and monthly premiums.  Exhibit A32 is the endorsement given by the employer of the Complainant informing about the LIC particulars for the period from April, 1999 to May 2000 vide Policy NO.692339845.  Exhibit A33 is the letter issued by the Opposite parties to the Complainant regarding the transfer of policy from Vijayawada-II to Guntur.  Exhibit A34,35,36,37 are the renewal premium receipts issued by the Opposite parties except Exhibits A38 to 41 and Pay slips of June 2003, July 2003, August 2003, September 2003, showing recovery of LIC premiums from the salary issued by the employer. 

6.     As per the version of the Opposite party there are gaps between the premium payments, but the document filed by the Complainant clearly shows that there were no gaps in policy premium payments and another plea of the Opposite parties is that the policy is not salary savings scheme, it was also not proved by the Opposite parties by filing any documents and moreover admitted in their counter, that premium was deducted from monthly salary by the employer and remitted to the Opposite parties.  It is to be noted that the Opposite parties recovered more installments even after maturity and after the maturity of the policy, the Opposite parties not paid the maturity amount of the policy to the Complainant.  More over, they are raising a plea, that it is not the salary savings scheme even after receipt of installments from the complainant.  Exhibit A30 is the status report of policy shows that the type of policy is salary savings scheme. 

7.     The other allegation regarding the gaps from May 2000 to December 2000 premiums it was evidenced by the documents filed by the complainant that there are no dues as alleged by the Opposite parties.  Both the parties filed calculation memo and on perusal of the memos, the Forum came to know that the Opposite parties paid policy amount of Rs.1,00,000/- and bonus of Rs.58,500/- as mentioned in Ex.A30 and also paid 10.5% p.a interest on that due amount.  In total they paid Rs.2,02,033/- including extra premiums collected by the opposite parties from the Complainant.  But the Complainant in its calculation memo he calculated the amount with 24% interest up to 27.03.2014.  But the Opposite parties calculated the interest from 28.03.2011 to 25.02.2014 at 10.5% p.a. on Rs.1,58,500/-.  But as per their mention in calculation memo they remitted the account of the Complainant through net on 23.03.2014, hence in our view, the Complainant can only seek the interest @ 10.5%  for one month on Rs.1,58,500/-.  The Complainant calculated the due amount of Rs.76,910/- but the Complainant calculated the due amount with 24% p.a interest.  Hence, the relief regarding the interest claimed by the Complainant is not admissible by this Forum as per the terms and conditions of Opposite party.  But he can entitle @ 10.5% p.a. on Rs.1,58,500/- from 26.02.2014 to 24.03.2014. 

8.     The relief regarding the compensation claimed by the Complainant is to be noted that, even after the premiums paid by the Complainant regularly, the Opposite party failed to release the maturity amount of the Complainant and more over, the Opposite party received monthly subscriptions up to July 2011, when the maturity date is 28.03.2011, it is observed that the Opposite party collected monthly subscriptions up to retirement of the Complainant.  More over, when the maturity date is in the year 2011 but the Opposite parties settled the issue in the year February, 2014.  There is no doubt that the Complainant suffered financially and mentally because of the acts of the Opposite parties even after the total premiums made by the Complainant.  Therefore, the Opposite parties are liable to pay the compensation of Rs.10,000/-, which would be just and proper. 

9.     The 3^rd relief claimed by the complainant regarding the travelling expenses, the Complainant not substantiated the travelling expenditure by filing any evidence. Hence, he cannot claim that relief. 

10.    Accordingly, this point is answered holding that the Opposite parties have to pay interest on Rs.1,58,500/- from 26.02.2014 to 24.03.2014 with 10.5% p.a. interest and Opposite parties should pay interest at 10.5% on Rs.3,855/- which was collected by the Opposite parties as extra premium amount after maturity of the policy up to 04.05.2014 from the date of complaint i.e., 09.04.2012, besides compensation of Rs.10,000/-.

11.    In the result, the Complaint is allowed directing the Opposite parties to pay interest only at 10.5% p.a. on Rs.1,58,500/- from 26.02.2014 to 24.03.2014 and also to pay interest only on Rs.3,855/- from the date of complaint i.e., 09.04.2012 till 04.05.2014 within three months.  The Opposite parties are also directed to pay compensation of Rs.10,000/- besides costs of Rs.2,000/-.

Dictated to the Shorthand Writer, transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced by us in the open Forum on this the 15^th day of September, 2014.

   Sd/-                                                                  Sd/-

Member                                                     President (FAC)

                                                        District Consumer Forum-I

                                                                        Visakhapatnam

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Exhibits Marked for the Complainant:

Exhibits Marked for the Opposite Party: NIL

   Sd/-                                                                  Sd/-

Member                                                     President (FAC)

                                                        District Consumer Forum-I

                                                                Visakhapatnam

//VSSKL//