Date of Filing: 24.03.2008 Date of Order: 23.06.2008 BEFORE THE I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM SESHADRIPURAM BANGALORE-20 Dated: 23rd DAY OF JUNE 2008 PRESENT Sri. Bajentri H.M, B.A, LL.B., President Smt.C.V. Rajamma, B.Sc., LL.B., PGDPR, Member Sri. M. Nagabhushana, B.Com, LL.B., Member COMPLAINT NO. 745 OF 2008 Sri. T. Subrahmanya Kekuda, R/at: Flat No.202, Ideal Apartments, Plot No.490, 16th Cross, Rajarajeshwari Nagar, BANGALORE-560 098. . Complainant. -V/s- Senior Branch Manager, LIC Of India, Branch No.893, S.V. Road, Santacruz(W), MUMBAI-400 054. . Opposite Party. ORDER This complaint is filed claiming Rs.5,548/- from the opposite party on the following grounds:- The complainant had taken Jeevan Suraksha LIC policy dated: 06.12.1996 which was to mature on 06.12.2007. The policy had the option either to claim pension for life or one time cash payment. The complainant opted for one time cash payment to meet the marriage expenses scheduled during mid December-2007. He submitted the letter dated: 14.11.2007 to the opposite party along with the policy through the LIC agent, who forwarded the documents to the LIC on 20.11.2007. Due to some internal problems, the LIC took more time and finally the cheque was issued on 26.12.2007 which he received on 28.12.2007. Since the cheque was issued on a Bank at Mumbai, to avoid delay in encashment he requested the LIC to issue a cheque payable at Bangalore or transfer the amount through ECS. Since both the options were not available with the LIC they issued Mumbai cheque. The cheque was deposited in the account on 30.12.2007 and the amount was credited to his account only on 20.01.2008. Thus it took 45 days from 06.12.2007 the date of vesting of the policy to 20.01.2008 to realize the amount. As a result, the complainant was put under tremendous tension as he had to make alternate arrangement to get Rs.1,00,000/- within short period. He borrowed money paying heavy rate of interest at the rate of 2.5% per month by depositing LIC policy as collateral security. He paid Rs.2,500/- towards interest to meet the urgent requirements as he had no other option. The delay in encashment and payment put him to loss of Rs.3,750/- towards interest for one and half months. In addition the Bank debited Rs.1,122/- as collection charges for outstation cheque. The LIC also did not respond to his letters dated: 29.01.2008 and 29.02.2008. Hence this complaint for a direction to the opposite party to pay Rs.5,548/- which includes Rs.3,750/- towards interest on the amount borrowed, Rs.1,122/- towards cheque collection charges, Rs.130/- and Rs.85/- towards expenses for filing the complaint, Rs.100/- towards courier charges, Rs.332/- towards conveyance charges, Rs.29/- towards phone call charges. 2. In spite of service of notice by RPAD the opposite party has remained absent. In support of the claim the complainant has filed his affidavit and has produced documents. 3. The points for consideration are:- Whether the complainant has proved deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party and therefore entitled to the relief prayed for? 4. Our finding on the above point is in the Negative for the following:- REASONS POINT No.1:- 5. Though the opposite party has remained absent the burden is on the complainant to prove that the service rendered by the opposite party is deficient and therefore he is entitled to the relief prayed for. The copy of the insurance policy produced by the complainant supports the contention of the complainant that he had obtained the insurance policy from the opposite party on 06.12.1996 and the same was to mature on 06.12.2007. When the policy itself was to mature on 06.12.2007 the complainant cannot expect payment of the sum insured before the date of maturity. Though the complainant sent representation on 20.11.2007 enclosing the insurance policy requesting the Insurance Company to pay the maturity amount he could not have expected payment of the maturity amount before the date of maturity of the policy. An insured can expect payment of the insurance amount within a reasonable time after the date on which the policy matures for payment. In respect of the policy that matured for a payment on 06.12.2007 the complainant admits that the cheque dated: 26.12.2007 was issued by the Insurance Company. If that is so, in about 20 days from the date of maturity of the policy the Insurance Company issued the cheque. The complainant himself admits that, the Insurance Company had no option either to issue a cheque payable at Bangalore or to transfer the amount through ECS. Therefore if the Insurance Company issued the cheque on a Bank at Mumbai the complainant cannot find fault with the Insurance Company in that regard. The whole grievance of the complainant is that the amount of the cheque deposited in his account on 30.12.2007 was credited to his account only on 20.01.2008 and therefore it took 45 days to realize the amount. The complainant calculate this period of 45 days from 06.12.2007 the date of maturity of the policy to 20.01.2008, the date on which the cheque amount was credited to his account. This calculation of delay cannot be accepted, because the complainant cannot expect payment of the insured amount on the date of maturity of the policy itself. Admittedly the complainant deposited cheque into his account on 30.12.2007 and the cheque amount was credited to his account on 20.01.2008 and thus it took about 20 days to realize the cheque amount. If there was any delay in crediting or realizing the cheque amount the complainant cannot blame the Insurance Company. Though the complainant claims that he borrowed Rs.1,00,000/- agreeing to pay interest at the rate of 2.5% per month, no material in support of that contention is produced. When the Insurance Company issued the cheque in about 20 days from the date of maturity of the policy it can be said that, the cheque was issued within a reasonable time and without undue delay. As such, we are unable to find any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party and therefore hold that, the complainant is not entitled to any relief prayed for in the complaint. In the result we pass the following:- ORDER 6. The complaint is dismissed. There is no order as to costs. 7. Send a copy of this order to both the parties free of costs immediately. 8. Pronounced in the Open Forum on this 23rd DAY OF JUNE 2008. MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
Consumer Court Lawyer
Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.
