ORDER

Date of order:   10-07-2017

Upendra Jha,Member       

                   This appeal is preferred against the order dated 08.03.2016 passed by the District Forum, Vaishali, Hajipur in Complaint Case No. 114 of 2010 by which the appellant as well as Respondent No. 2 Development officer are directly jointly and severally to pay Rs. 25,000/- as compensation and Rs. 15,000/- as litigation cost to the complainant within 45 days otherwise 9% interest shall be payable on the entire amount.

2.      Shortly the case is that complainant deposited Rs. 2,788/- on 16.12.2008 as premium of L.I.C Policy to the respondent Development officer A.K. Ram and asked for original receipt and policy Bond paper. After repeated reminders both papers were not made available to the complainant. On legal notice dated 08.09.2010 there was no response from him. The complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum, Vaishali. The respondent – opposite parties contested the case. The District Forum passed the impugned order against which this appeal is preferred.

3. Respective written notes of arguments have been filed by the parties. Heard.

4.    District Forum found that the Development officer of the opposite parties – appellant had not done his duty to provide receipt and policy Bond to the complainant for that the complainant had to suffer harassment hence passed the impugned order.

5.       The counsel for the appellants L.I.C submits that in compliance of the order passed by the District Forum is Complaint Case No. 114/2010 the respondent L.I.C issued a cheque dated 05.07.2011 for Rs. 2,788/- and the complainant received this amount on 01.08.2011 without any protest. The complainant case was disposed of vide order dated 12.08.2011. But the complainant filed appeal No. 452/11 before this Commission. This Commission vide order dated 19.05.2014 set aside the order dated 12.08.2011 passed by the District Forum, Vaishali for fresh consideration. The counsel submits that the complainant is not a ‘Consumer’ with the meaning of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 under section 2(I) d(ii). The dispute between complainant and the Development officer is purely a civil nature, that can be adjudicated in complaint Civil Court. The case was remanded to examine the role of Development officer and to pass a reasoned order. But this order has not been compiled by the District Forum. The District Forum order is not sustainable. It is fit to set aside.

6.          The counsel for the respondent complainant submits that he has received the amount of Rs. 2,788/- on 16.12.2008 from L.I.C but the respondent Development officer dishonestly used the money for his personal use. Hence, there is deficiency on the part of the Development officer. The District Forum order is proper and justified. The appeal is frivolous and fit to be dismissed.

 7.             Having considered the submission of the parties and on perusal of the order passed by the District Forum it appear that the development officer received Rs. 2,788/- from the complainant on behalf of the L.I.C and it was admitted by L.I.C. Hence, this amount was received by the complainant on 16.12.2008. Now, it cannot be admitted that the complainant is not a consumer and this dispute can be adjudicated in competent Civil Court. District Forum order is proper and justified. However, the amount of compensation and litigation cost altogether of Rs. 40,000/- is reduced to Rs. 10,000/- only. This amount be paid to the complainant within two months from the receipt of this order failing which 10% interest will be payable.

The appeal is partly allowed.

       S.K.Sinha                                                         Upendra Jha                                                                       

      President                                                            Member (M)

           Mukund