Tamil Nadu

South Chennai

CC/65/2016

A.Venugopal, A.Santhanalakshmi - Complainant(s)

Versus

L.I.C. of India City Branch XXII - Opp.Party(s)

Party in Persion

09 Jul 2019

ORDER

                                                                        Date of Filing  : 18.02.2016

                                                                          Date of Order : 09.07.2019

                                                                                  

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, CHENNAI (SOUTH)

@ 2^ND Floor, T.N.P.S.C. Road, V.O.C. Nagar, Park Town, Chennai – 3.

 

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

TR. R. BASKARKUMARAVEL, B.Sc., L.L.M., BPT., PGDCLP.  : MEMBER

 

C.C. No.65/2016

DATED THIS TUESDAY THE 09^TH DAY OF JULY 2019

                                 

1. A. Venugopal,

S/o. Mr. A. Jayachandran,

 

2. A. Santhanalakshmi,

W/o. Mr. A. Venugopal,

Both residing at:-

No.8, (Old No.21), Kellys Road,

Kilpauk,

Chennai – 600 010.                                                       .. Complainants.                                                

 

       ..Versus..

1. L.I.C of India,

City Branch XXII,

Rep. by Sr. Branch Manager

Mrs. C.M. Salomi,

No.128, Bricklin Road,

Purasawakkam,

Chennai – 600 007.

 

2. Mrs. C.M. Salomi,

Senior Branch Manager,

L.I.C. of India,

No.128, Bricklin Road,

Purasawakkam,

Chennai – 600 007.                                                 ..  Opposite parties.

 

For the complainants                             : Party in person

Counsel for the opposite parties 1 & 2 : M/s. M. B. Gopalan

                                                                 Associates & others

 

ORDER

THIRU. M. MONY, PRESIDENT

       This complaint has been filed by the complainants against the opposite parties 1 & 2 under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 prays to pay interest on Rs.12,79,220/- being the policy amount paid by the complainant to the 1^st opposite party from 12.08.2015 (being the date of payment for the said two policies by the complainants to the 1^st opposite party) upto 22.09.2015 (being the date of payment for the said two policies less stamp duty by the 1^st opposite party to the complainants) amounting to Rs.34,474/- with further interest at 24% p.a. on Rs.34,474/- (being the amount due for non-payment of interest as claimed in the Notice dated:26.09.2015) upto 18.02.2016 (being the date of filing the case) a sum of Rs.3,330/- in all amounting to Rs.37,804/- being the interest due at 24% p.a. for non-payment despite the notice dated:26.09.2015 sent by the complainants from 12.08.2015 (the date of payment of the policy amount of Rs.12,79,200/- to the 1^st opposite party by the complainants) upto 18.02.2016 (the date of filing this case) and also further interest at 24% p.a. on Rs.37,804/- from the date of filing this case (18.02.2016) upto realization and to pay a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- towards damages on account of the delay in return of the policies amount after having admitted their deliberate, deceitful and malicious act in issuing two policies for a maximum pension of Rs.10,000/- per month when the complainants were entitled to only policies for a maximum pension of Rs.5,000/- per month for one family, the deliberate and enormous delay in payment of the policy amount and after delay of 41 days paying only the policies amount less stamp duty and not paying the interest claimed and thereby causing harassment, mental agony, anxiety and obsession to the complainants and the opposite parties are bound to pay Rs.2,37,804/- towards interest and damages with further interest at 24% p.a. on the amount due upto realization with cost to the complainant.

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

The complainants submits that they have availed Pension plan namely; Varishtha Pension Bima Yojana Plan for Senior Citizens and paid a sum of Rs.6,39,610/- each by way of cheque dated:12.08.2015.  The complainants submits that the 2^nd opposite party officials obtained signatures from the complainants in two forms on 10.08.2015.  Even after repeated requests, the opposite parties issued policy only on 21.08.2015.  The complainants submits that as per the terms and conditions of the policy in Part C, it is clearly stated that under the Heading Pension Benefits:

“Total amount of Pension under all the Policies issued to a family under this Plan shall not  exceed Rs.60,000/- per Annum”.   

From this, it is clear that a family is entitled to a maximum Pension of Rs.60,000/- annually.   But the first opposite party had given two Policies for an annual pension of Rs.60,000/- to each complainant at the instance of the Second Opposite Party.  This is against the Terms & Conditions and therefore, the First complainant had written a letter addressed to the First Opposite party represented by the Second Opposite party on 24.08.2015 asking them to take back the two policies and return the amount given by the complainants amounting to Rs.12,79,220/- with interest upto the date of payment for not only the negligence of the Opposite party but also for the wrong, mischievous and deceitful act done by the Opposite parties in not disclosing the true facts of the said Pension Plan and purposely suppressing true facts which is  nothing short of dereliction of duty.  Even though the complainants were entitled to retain one policy for an annual pension of Rs.60,000/-, the complainants felt that the start was itself not conducive and moreover, there are some personal financial commitments so the complainants had asked for return of the money in both the policies which the complainants were entitled to as per part F of the Terms & Conditions of the Policy.  But the opposite parties stated that only one policy alone is entitled to a family and two policies shall not be granted.  Hence, the complainants were not interested with the policy and requested to cancel the policy.   The complainants submit that the opposite parties after cancelling the policy issued cheque for a sum of Rs.6,39,610/- each.  Hence, the complainants filed this complaint for recovery of the interest for Rs.34,474/- at the rate of 24% p.a. for the period from 11.08.2015 to 26.09.2015.  The complainants submit that the post dated cheque dated:12.08.2015 was encashed by the opposite parties and the service is not satisfactory on the part of the complainant.  Thereby, the complainants cancelled the policy.  But the opposite parties issued the cheque only on 22.09.2015. Thereby, the opposite parties are liable to pay interest for such period.    The act of the opposite parties 1 & 2 amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice which caused great mental agony.  Hence, the complaint is filed.

2.      The brief averments in the written version filed by opposite parties 1 & 2 is as follows:

The opposite parties 1 & 2 specifically deny each and every allegations made in the complaint and put the complainant to strict proof of the same.    The opposite parties 1 & 2 state that there is no cause of action for the case.  The complainants submitted their proposal to the corporate agent M/s. Indian Overseas Bank, Kilpauk dated:11.08.2015 & 12.08.2015 for Varishta Pension Bima Yojana Scheme which not only provides pension but various other benefits as per the life coverage.  The proposal were signed by the complainants were received by the opposite parties on 11.08.2015 and 12.08.2015 respectively.   Immediately, the proposals were processed and the policies were generated on 12.08.2015 & 13.08.2015 and handed over to the corporate agent and delivered to the complainants.   The letter of confirmation also sent to the complainants.  On 24.8.2015, letters intimating details of the vesting of Pension benefits was issued.  The opposite parties had stated that only one policy for a family to the complainants.  On the request of the complainants on 24.08.2015, the request for refund was processed and the refund was made on 22.09.2015.  The opposite parties 1 & 2 state that Varishtha Pension Bima Yojana Plan is a Government subsidised scheme providing assured interest at the rate of 9% p.a. subject to the terms and conditions.  After refund of the amount, the opposite parties received notice claiming interest was issued on 26.09.2015 received by the Branch Office on 28.09.2015.   The opposite parties 1 & 2 state that the complainants are attempting to lay undue blame on the opposite parties.  The policy was issued only on the proposal made by the complainants through Corporate Agents.  There is no delay in issuing the policy and cancelling the policy.  Equally, there is no delay in issuance and confirmation of the policy.  The limit of pension is not mentioned in the policy and in the proposal form because, the policy is not merely providing pension but life coverage also.   There is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties 1 & 2 because, the complainants are entitled the benefits of pension only after one year.   Hence, the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

3.     To prove the averments in the complaint, the complainant has filed proof affidavit as their evidence and documents Ex.A1 to Ex.A8 are marked.  Proof affidavit of the opposite parties 1 & 2 is filed and documents Ex.B1 to Ex.B4 are marked on the side of the opposite parties 1 & 2.

4.      The points for consideration is:-

1. Whether the complainants are entitled a sum of Rs.34,474/- towards interest for the policy amount of Rs.12,79,220/- and another sum of Rs.37,804/- as prayed for?
2. Whether the complainants are entitled to a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- towards damages and mental agony with cost as prayed for?

 

5.      On point:-

Both parties filed their respective written arguments.  Heard their Counsels also.  Perused the records namely; the complaint, written version, proof affidavits and documents.  The complainants pleaded and contended that they have availed Pension plan namely; Varishtha Pension Bima Yojana Plan for Senior Citizens as per Ex.A1 and paid a sum of Rs.6,39,610/- each by way of cheque dated:12.08.2015.  But the complainants has not filed any Xerox copy of the cheque except letter, Ex.A5 & Ex.A6.   But on a careful perusal of records, the opposite parties issued policies bearing Nos.708441899 & 708441878 dated:12.08.2015 & 11.08.2015 received only on 21.08.2015 respectively.  Ex.A1 & Ex.A2 are the copies of the policy.   Further the contention of the complainants is that the 2^nd opposite party officials obtained signatures from the complainants in 2 forms on 10.08.2015.  Even after repeated requests, the opposite parties issued policy only on 21.08.2015.  Further the contention of the complainants is that as per the terms and conditions of the policy in Part C, it is clearly stated that under the Heading Pension Benefits:

“Total amount of Pension under all the Policies issued to a family under  this Plan shall not  exceed Rs.60,000/- per Annum”.    From this, it is clear that a family is entitled to a maximum Pension of Rs.60,000/- annually.   But the first opposite party had given two Policies for an annual pension of Rs.60,000/- to each complainant at the instance of the Second Opposite Party.  This is against the Terms & Conditions and therefore, the First complainant had written a letter addressed to the First Opposite party represented by the Second Opposite party on 24.08.2015 asking them to take back the two policies and return the amount given by the complainants amounting to Rs.12,79,220/- with interest upto the date of payment for not only the negligence of the Opposite party but also for the wrong, mischievous and deceitful act done by the Opposite parties in not disclosing the true facts of the said Pension Plan and purposely suppressing true facts which is  nothing short of dereliction of duty.  Even though the complainants were entitled to retain one policy for an annual pension of Rs.60,000/-, the complainants felt that the start was itself not conducive and moreover, there are some personal financial commitments so the complainants had asked for return of the money in both the policies which the complainants were entitled to as per part F of the Terms & Conditions of the Policy”.

But the opposite parties stated that only one policy alone is entitled to a family and two policies shall not be granted.  Hence, the complainants were not interested with the policy and requested to cancel the policy as per Ex.A4.   

6.     Further the contention of the complainants is that the opposite parties after cancelling the policy issued cheque for a sum of Rs.6,39,610/- each as per Ex.B2.  Hence, the complainants filed this complaint for recovery of the interest for Rs.34,474/- at the rate of 24% p.a. for the period from 11.08.2015 to 26.09.2015.  Further the contention of the complainants is that the post dated cheque dated:12.08.2015 was encashed by the opposite parties and the service is not satisfactory on the part of the complainant.  Thereby, the complainants was constrained to cancel the policy as per Ex.A4.  But the opposite parties issued cheque only on 22.09.2015.    Thereby, the opposite parties are liable to pay interest for such period.  But on a careful perusal of records, the complainant has not produced any document to prove the concrete decision for the cancellation of the policy.  On the other hand, it is not denied by the opposite parties that the officials of the opposite parties voluntarily approached the complainant, explained in detail and boosted the interest of the complainants using the sweet words and delayed the process in all point of time.

7.     The learned Counsel for the opposite parties 1 & 2 would contend that there is no cause of action for the case.  The complainants submitted their proposal to the corporate agent M/s. Indian Overseas Bank, Kilpauk dated:11.08.2015 & 12.08.2015 for Varishta Pension Bima Yojana Scheme which not only provides pension but various other benefits as per Ex.B1 of life coverage.  The proposal were duly signed by the complainants were received by the opposite parties on 11.08.2015 and 12.08.2015 respectively.   Immediately, the proposals were processed and the policies were generated on 12.08.2015 & 13.08.2015 and handed over to the corporate agent and delivered to the complainants.   The letter of confirmation also sent to the complainants.  On 24.8.2015, letters intimating details of the vesting of Pension benefits was issued.  On no occasion, the opposite parties had stated only one policy for a family.  On the request of the complainants on 24.08.2015, the request for refund was processed and due refund was made on 22.09.2015 as per Ex.B2.  Further the contention of the opposite parties 1 & 2 is that Varishtha Pension Bima Yojana Plan is a Government subsidised scheme providing assured interest at the rate of 9% p.a. subject to the terms and conditions.  After due refund of the amount, the opposite parties received notice claiming interest without any basic reason.   

8.     Further the contention of the opposite parties 1 & 2 is that the complainants are attempting to lay undue blame on the opposite parties.  The policy was issued only on the proposal made by the complainants through Corporate Agents.  There is no delay in issuing the policy and cancelling the policy.   Equally, there is no delay in issuance and confirmation of the policy.  The limit of pension is not mentioned in the policy and proposal form.  Because, the policy is not merely providing pension but life coverage also.   There is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties 1 & 2 because, the complainants are entitled the benefits of pension only after one year.   The claim of interest to the tune of Rs.37,804/- is imaginary.  The complainant has not lost even a single pie towards availing the policy as well as cancellation of the policy.  The complainants availed the policy on their own accord and cancelled the policy on their own violation shall not deserve any interest or compensation.   Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Forum is of the considered that this complaint has to be dismissed.

In the result, this complaint is dismissed.  No costs.

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 09^th day of July 2019. 

 

MEMBER                                                                                PRESIDENT

 

COMPLAINANT SIDE DOCUMENTS:-

Exhibits	Date	Description of Documents
Ex.A1	11.08.2015 & 12.08.2015	Copy of two policies, one Policy No.708441878 dated:11.08.2015 in favour of the 2nd complainant and another Policy No.708441899 dated:12.08.2015 in favour of the 1st complainant and both policies issued by the 1st opposite party and complainants
Ex.A2	24.08.2015	Copy of letter dated:24.08.2015 sent by the 1st complainant to the 2nd opposite party referring to the return of the two Policies and the payment of the Policies  amount with acknowledgement for the receipt of the said letter by the Assistant Branch Manager (Sales Mr. C. Shaktivel)
Ex.A3	24.08.2015	Copy of letter dated:24.08.2015 issued by the 2nd opposite party to the complainants for the receipt of the two Policies No.708441899 and 708441878
Ex.A4	26.09.2015	Notice dated:26.09.2015 sent by the 1st complainant to the 1st opposite party for the return of the said two Policies amounts with interest with acknowledgement receipt from the 1st opposite party on 28.09.2015.
Ex.A5	13.08.2015	Copy of letter dated:13.08.2015 sent by the 2nd opposite party to the 1st complainant regarding Policy No.708441899
Ex.A6	12.08.2015	Copy of letter dated:12.08.2015 sent on 01.09.2015 by the 2ndopposite party to the 2nd complainant on 03.09.2015 with cover referring to Policy No.708441878
Ex.A7	24.08.2015	Copy of the letter dated:24.08.2015 sent on 18.09.2015 by the 2nd opposite party to the 1st complainant and received by the 1st complainant on 19.09.2015 with cover referring to Policy No.708441899 and intimating for payment of annuity and other details regarding the policy
Ex.A8	24.08.2015	Copy of letter dated:24.08.2015 sent on 23.09.2015 by the 2nd opposite party to the 2nd complainant and received by the 2nd complainant on 26.09.2015 with cover referring to Policy No.708441878 intimating for payment of annuity and other details regarding the Policy

 

OPPOSITE PARTIES 1 & 2’ SIDE DOCUMENTS:-  

Ex.B1		Copy of full proposal with KYC Papers
Ex.B2	22.09.2015	Copy of proof for refund
Ex.B3	24.08.2015	Copy of request for refund
Ex.B4	26.09.2015	Copy of notice from the complainant to opposite parties

 

 

                              

MEMBER                                                                                PRESIDENT