This is a petition filed U/S 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 by the complainant, Tasri Ali praying an award of `50,000/- together with compensation of `10,000/- and litigation cost of `5,000/- against the Opposite Parties no. 1 & 2/ Jeevan Madhur Plan Office. Fact in short is that the Complainant took an insurance policy of `18,000/- from the O.P. no. 2 to O.P. no.1 and O.P. no. 3 issued the policy bearing no. 455561327 covering the risk of death benefit sum assured `18,000/- and installment premium `100/- per month for a period of 15 years starting from 12-05-2008. Accordingly he paid premium upto 21.03.2010 and O.P. no.2 issued premium pay slip but no final premium receipts were issued by O.P. no. 3 despite repeated assurance from the O.P. no. 2. After few months the complainant found that the office of the O.P. no. 2 was closed. There after the complainant visited the office of O.P. no. 1 and O.P. no. 3 and knew that no premium was deposited at the office of O.P. no. 3 and for this reason his policy was lapsed. Hence this case on the ground that the service of the O.Ps. are not according to the terms and conditions.
On the other hand O.P. no. 1 by filing their W.V. has contested this case denying all the allegations made against them in the complaint by the complainant. Their specific case has been stated by the O.P. no.1 in paragraph no.16 in their W.V. According to them the complainant is not at all policy holder of their Jeevan Madhur Plan Office situated at Raiganj. So, O.P. no.1 has prayed for dismiss the case with cost. The opposite parties no. 2 and 3 made their appearance have not contested the case finally. So, the case was heard ex-parte against the opposite parties no. 2 and 3.
To establish the case the complainant has filed Xerox copies of premium received slips issued by O.P. no. 2 and policy certificate issued by O.P. no. 3.
Decision with reason
Giving due consideration to the contents of the petition of complainant, W.V. by O.P. no.1 , documents in record, the Ld. Forum has come to the findings as follows ;-
The O.P. no. 1 is Micro Insurance Agent (MIA) of O.P. no 3. The complainant paid his premiums to O.P. no. 2 who has MIA code no. 83047R045. The O.P. no. 1 has made a statement in their written version that ‘the OP no.1 bears the Micro Insurance Agency (MIA) Code No. - 83020R045 and not the MIA code-830478075. That the O.P. no. 1 has no connection with MIA code No. 830478045’. The code numbers 830478075 or 830478045 are not same with the code no. of Jeevan Madhur Plan Office at Karandighi. We do not understand from where OP no. 1 got those numbers. Those are not related with the instant case. On the other hand, the O.P. no. 1 fails to show any document which supports its code number as stated in their written version as well as relationship with the alleged branch of Jeevan Madhur Plan Office bearing MIA code number 83047R045 at Karandighi in which the complainant made his transaction. Mere written assertion is not sufficient to come to a conclusion that the OP no. 1 has different MIA code number which means there is no relation with the OP no. 2 as well as in the instant case. It is not clear to us whether the OP no. 2 is the branch of OP no. 1 as both are doing business under the same name and style ‘Jeevan Madhur Plan Office’. There may be a nexus between OP no. 1 and OP no. 2. The OP No.3/LICI is the appointing authority of OP no. 1 & 2 as Micro Insurance Agent (MIA) who has not come forward finally to contest the case denying the case of the complainant. So, under the law when the OP No.3 remains silence and did not come forward to oppose the case of the complainant it amounts that the case of the complainant has not been shaken by the OP No.3. Under the facts and circumstances, we conclude that the OP no. 1 did not come before this Forum with clean hand. The complainant deposited total premium of ` 2436/- as per documents submitted by him. But the O.P. no. 1 and/ or 2 failed to show that they had deposited the same to the O.P. no. 3. Without getting premium in due time O.P. no. 3 has no role to continue the policy. So, it is crystal clear that the opposite parties no. 1 and 2 are involving in unfair trade practices which is not tenable in the eye of law. We do hold that the complainant has established a good case to succeed. As such he is entitled to get all deposited amount from the Opposite Parties no. 1 and 2.
Fees paid are correct.
Hence, it is ordered
that this case bearing no. 42/11 is allowed on contest against the O.P. no. 1 and ex-parte against O.P. no. 2 who are jointly and severally liable to pay the awarded sum to the complainant and dismissed ex-parte against O. P. no.3/ LICI without cost.
That the complainant do get an order of award of deposited sum Rs. 2,436/- and compensation of Rs. 10,000/- together with litigation cost of Rs. 1,000/- against the Opposite Parties no. 1 and 2 , which is total of Rs. 13,436/-.
The Opposite Parties no. 1 and 2 are directed to pay the aforesaid amount within one month from the date of this order; in default, an interest @ 9% p.a. shall be levied till full satisfaction from the date of filing this case, i.e., 19-08-2011.
In case of non payment of the aforesaid amount in the manner stated above, the complainant may put the order into execution.
Furnish the true photocopies of this final order to the parties free of cost.
