DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BATHINDA (PUNJAB)
CC No. 172 of 25-04-2011 Decided on : 27-09-2011
Narpat Singh aged about 52 years S/o Sh. Lachman Singh Milk Vendor, VPO Bhucho Khurd, District Bathinda. .... Complainant Versus
LIC of India, Divisional Office, Jeevan Parkash Urban Estate, Phase 1, Dugri Ludhiana 141 002 through its Senior Divisional Manager. Branch Manager, LIC of India, Jeevan Jyoti Building, Bibiwala Road, Bathinda. ..... Opposite parties
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
QUORUM Smt. Vikramjit Kaur Soni, President Smt. Sukhwinder Kaur, Member
For the Complainant : Sh. Ashok Gupta, counsel for the complainant For the Opposite parties : Sh. Sanjay Goyal, counsel for opposite parties.
O R D E R
VIKRAMJIT KAUR SONI, PRESIDENT
The instant complaint has been filed by the complainant under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as amended upto date (here-in-after referred to as 'Act'). In brief, the case of the complainant is that he got a Insurance policy No. 160424080 from opposite party No. 2 in the year 1990 and maturity of the policy was in the month of January,2011. The complainant paid all the installments in time. He received a letter dated 18-11-2010 from opposite party No. 1 vide which he was informed that an amount of Rs. 2,36,200/- would be paid to him, but an amount of Rs. 2,24,400/- has been paid to him. The complainant alleged that the opposite parties made deduction of Rs. 11,800/- without any explanation. He approached the opposite parties many times and requested them to give details of deduction, but no response was given to him. The complainant further alleged that he is a poor and retired man from the Army and paid his hard earned money with the hope that he would get the maturity amount and would utilize the same for education of his children, but the opposite parties are trying to swallow his earning. Hence, he has filed the present complaint. The opposite parties filed their joint written reply and pleaded that intimation of the maturity is sent much prior to the date of maturity just to inform the Life Assured about the maturity so that all the matured claims are settled on or before due date of maturity. The intimation was sent to the complainant on 18-11-2010 whereas the date of maturity was 15-01-2011, so the amount which was calculated on the date of intimation was erroneously reflected as Rs. 2,36,200/- which was on the basis of valuation as on 31-03-2009 whereas the amount payable to the complainant was as per valuation as on 31-03-2010 and the same was a bonafide error by computer and the complainant was duly explained about the same but he with a malafide intention has filed the present complaint knowing fully that the amount has been rightly paid. The complainant was duly supplied the details of the amount payable to him at the time of disbursement of the amount i.e. Rs. 2,24,400/- and the complainant had duly received the said amount voluntarily without any protest. The opposite parties have given the details of the matured policy as under :- Calculation as result of valuation of 31-03-2009 (applicable for maturity claims upto 31-12-2010) Assured sum Rs. 1,00,000/- Vested bonus 1162 X 100 Rs. 1,16,200/- Final additional bonus 200 X 100 Rs. 20,000/- Total Rs. 2,36,200/- Calculation as on 31-03-2010 (applicable for maturity claim 01-01-2011 to 31-12-2011. Sum assured Rs. 1,00,000/- Vested bonus 1204 X 100 Rs. 1,20,400/- Final additional bonus 40 X 100 Rs. 4,000/- Rs. 2,24,400/- The opposite parties have pleaded that since the bonus keeps changing as per the valuation returns to the opposite parties, the same are calculated at the end of the financial year and so the amount has been rightly paid as per the valuation of 31-03-2010. If bonus increases in the said valuation, the LIC pays the higher amounts. Parties have led their evidence in support of their respective pleadings. Arguments heard. Record alongwith written submissions submitted by the parties perused. These are admitted facts of the parties that complainant got Insurance Policy No. 160424080 from the opposite parties. The opposite parties had written a letter dated 18-11-2010 Ex. C-2 to the complainant showing maturity amount to the tune of Rs. 2,36,200/- but an amount of Rs. 2,24,400/- has been paid to him through cheque vide Ex. C-3 after making a deduction of Rs. 11,800/-. The plea of the opposite parties is that intimation letter dated 18-11-2010 was sent to the complainant but inadvertently and due to the error at the time of issuance of letter the valuation of the policy was reflected as on 31-03-2009 i.e. Rs. 2,36,200/- instead of valuation as on 31-03-2010 i.e. Rs. 2,24,400/- and it was merely an error in the letter which has been duly explained to the complainant. No doubt, the opposite parties have placed on file various charts Ex. R-2 to Ex. R-6 showing/making calculations at their own level, but they have not produced on file even a single document signed by the complainant to prove that complainant was made aware of the any of the condition regarding payment of bonus under policy. There is no document on file to show that while sending the cheque for Rs. 2,24,400/- the details regarding deduction was sent by the opposite parties to the complainant. The opposite parties have admitted that a letter dated 18-11-2010 Ex. C-2 was sent to the complainant showing net payable amount Rs. 2,36,200/-. A perusal of Ex. C-2 reveals that the opposite parties have obtained receipt i.e. signatures of the complainant on revenue stamp, for the payment of Rs. 2,36,200/- whereas the payment of Rs. 2,24,400/- has been paid to him. Thus, the plea of the opposite parties that complainant has voluntarily received the amount of Rs. 2,24,400/- without any protest is not tenable as the complainant has signed the receipt for Rs. 2,36,200/-. The opposite parties have pleaded that since the bonus keeps changing as per the valuation returns to the opposite parties, the same are calculated at the end of the financial year and so the amount has been rightly paid as per the valuation of 31-03-2010. If bonus increases in the said valuation, the LIC pays the higher amounts. No such document has been placed on file by the opposite parties to show valuation returns on the basis of which deductions have been made by them. As discussed above, the opposite parties have not produced any document on file to show that the complainant was made aware of the terms and conditions under which deduction/calculation have been made, at the time of issuance of the policy. He is not bound by such terms and conditions which were never supplied to him. Hence, there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. In the result, this complaint is accepted with Rs.2,000/- as compensation and cost. The opposite parties are directed to make the payment of Rs.11,800/- to the complainant being the difference of amount for which receipt has already been obtained by the opposite parties from the complainant.
The compliance of this order be made within 45 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order and in case of non-compliance within the stipulated period, the aforesaid claim amount would carry interest @ 9 % till realisation. A copy of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost and the file be consigned to record.
Pronounced : 27-09-2011 (Vikramjit Kaur Soni) President (Sukhwinder Kaur) Member |
