Haryana

Yamunanagar

CC/249/2013

Rameshwar Das S/o Babu Ram - Complainant(s)

Versus

LIC Of India - Opp.Party(s)

Mukesh Garg

02 Aug 2017

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, YAMUNA   NAGAR

 

                                                               Complaint No. 249 of 2013.

                                                               Date of institution: 26.03.2013

                                                               Date of decision: 02.08.2017.

 

Rameshwar Das son of shri Babu Ram, resident of 48 near Khera mandir VPO Khizrabad, Tehsil Chhachhrauli, District Yamuna Nagar.                                                                        

                                                                                                                             …Complainant.

 

                               Versus

1. LIC of India, Divisional Office, Karnal through its Divisional Manager.
2. Life Insurance Corporation of India, Branch Office, Opposite Madhu Cinema, Jagadhri Road, Yamuna Nagar, through its Branch Manager.
3. Ravinder Kumar Garg son of Banarsi Das, Shop No.3/830, Opp. Old Shibu Metal Gandhi Market, Jagadhri.

 

                               ….Respondents.

                  

BEFORE    SH. DHARAMPAL, PRESIDENT

                   SH. S.C.SHARMA, MEMBER.

                   SMT. VEENA RANI SHEOKAND, MEMBER.          

 

Present:       Sh. Mukesh Garg, Advocate, for complainant.   

                    Sh. Rajiv Gupta, Advocate, for OP No. 1 & 2.

                    OP No.3 already ex parte.

 

ORDER (DHARAM PAL, PRESIDENT)

 

1.                The complainant Rameshwar Das has filed this complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 as amended up to date (hereinafter respondent will be referred as OPs). 

2.                Brief facts of the complaint, as alleged by the complainant, are that the complainant had purchased one insurance policy “Market Plus”  of Life Insurance Corporation of India through agent i.e. OP No.3 for a period of 5 years and had deposited the first annual premium to the tune of Rs.2,50,000/-. At the time of the purchase of the policy, the OP  No.3 told that if the complainant wants to deposit only three installment of Rs.2,50,000/- each then the maturity amount will be Rs.15,00,000/- on maturity i.e. after five years. It is alleged that again the OP No.3 has collected the premium amount of Rs.2,50,000/- from the complainant for the year 2007 but the OP No.3 did not hand over the receipt of the premium amount saying that the receipt has been misplaced. It is contended that the complainant on maturity of the policy on 16.10.2011 contacted with OP No.2 and the OP No.2 told that the only one installment of Rs.2,50,000/- for the year 2006 has been received and the second installment which was received by the OP No.3 was not deposited by him. The cheque issued by the OP No.3 from his own account was dishonoured. The act of the agent i.e. OP No.3 is illegal and being principal the OP No.1 and 2 are liable to pay the amount. There is clear cut deficiency on the part of the OPs and prayed for acceptance of the complaint along with compensation on account of harassment as well as litigation expenses.

3.                Upon notice, the OP No.1 and 2 appeared and filed its written statement taking some preliminary objections such as the complaint is not maintainable against the answering OPs and liable to be dismissed; the dispute, if any, is between the complainant and OP No.3 and the OP No.1 and 2 has nothing to do the same and on merit the OP  No.1 and 2 averred that one Insurance Policy bearing No.175122724 was issued to the complainant without any sum insured on 16.01.2006 and only one annual premium of Rs.2,50,000/- has been received. A cheque of the next/second premium due on 16.10.2007 was given to the corporation but the cheque in question was dishonoured. It is further alleged that Section 49 of LIC Act, 1956 expressly prohibited the agent for collecting premium from an insured on behalf of LIC and agent collecting premium from an insured is not agent of LIC, rather that of the insured  and as such the OP No.1 and 2 are not liable for act of the agent. Hence, there is no deficiency in service on the part of OP  No.1 and 2 and prayed for dismissal of the complainant against the answering OPs.

4.                Notice to the OP No.3 was issued through Registered post on 21.02.2015 but none has appeared  on behalf of the OP No.3 and such OP No.3 was proceeded ex parte vide order dated 27.03.2015.

5.                In support of his case, learned counsel for the complainant tendered into evidence affidavit of complainant as Annexure CW1/A along with documents such as Original Policy Bond as Annexure C1, First Premium receipt as Annexure C2, second premium receipt as Annexure C3, statement of bank account as Annexure C4 and closed the evidence on behalf of complainant.

6.                On the other hand learned counsel for the OP No.1 and 2 tendered into evidence affidavit of Shri Surinder Kumar, Administrative Officer as Annexure R1/A along with documents such as Proposal Form as Annexure R1/1, photocopy of policy bond as Annexure R1/2, computer generated Status Report as Annexure R1/3 and R1/4 and closed the evidence on  behalf of OP No.1 and 2.

7.                We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the record available on the file.

8.                After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through the record, it is admitted fact that the complainant has purchased one Market Plus, Policy for a premium of Rs.2,50,000/- payable yearly. It is also not disputed that first annual premium of Rs.2,50,000/- was deposited by the complainant and the policy bond was issued. The version of the complainant is that he had given a cheque of Rs.2,50,000/- for second premium to OP No.3 the authorized Agent of OP No.1 and 2 and the said cheque was encashed from his account and as such OP no.3 being authorized agent of OP No.1 and 2, the OP No.1 and 2 are liable to pay the maturity amount. The version of the OP No.1 and 2 is that Section 49 of LIC Act, 1956 expressly prohibits an agent from collecting the premium amount. The foremost question arise before us whether the Life Corporation of India is liable for the Act and omission of their agent or not? It is admitted by the complainant in Para No.3 of the complaint that he issued a cheque of Rs.2,50,000/- and handed over to OP No.3 for depositing the same with the OP No.1 and 2 and as per Annexure C4 (Bank Statement), the said cheque was encashed from the account of the complainant by Shri Ravinder Kumar i.e. OP No.3. The version of OP No.1 and 2 is that receipt for second premium was issued by the OP No.3 who deposited the cheque of Rs.2,50,000/- with the OP Corporation from his own account and the said cheque was dishonoured and as such Corporation has not received a second premium amount. The counsel for the OP No.1 and 2 has relied upon the case law titled as “LIC of India Vs. Smt. Shobha Rani Shah and another” reported in CTJ 2011 25 (NC) wherein the Hon’ble National Commission held that “Claim repudiated by Insurer as the Insurance policy stood lapse on account of non-payment of premium- complainant by the insured’s wife alleging that respondent No.2, an authorized agent of the insurer, collected the premium from the deceased for onward payment to the insurer but apparently misappropriated by him- Complaint  allowed by the District Forum- Insurer made liable to make payment of insured amount of Rs.1 lac with compensation of Rs. 50,000/- and cost- On appeal the State Commission maintained the basic finding of the District Forum holding the insurer to be liable but reduced the compensation to Rs.20,000/- inclusive of cost- Hence, the revision- As held by the Supreme Court  in Harshad J. Shah & another V. Lice of India and others, an agent collecting premium from an insured is not the agent of insurance company rather that of the insured- Moreover, Section 49 of the LIC Act, 1956 expressly prohibits and agent from collecting premium from an insured on behalf of the Life Insurance Corporation- Therefore, the insurer was well within its authority to have repudiated the claim- Impugned Order of the State Commission set aside- Revision Petition allowed.”

9.                We have also gone through the Section 49 of LIC Act, 1956 wherein the agent has been expressly prohibited to collect premium on behalf of Life Insurance Corporation of India. Moreover, the insurance policy was also lying in foreclosed position as next premium due on 16.10.2007 was not received by OP Corporation.

10.              In view of the above discussion and case law referred above (Supra), we are of the confirmed view that there is a no deficiency on the part of the OP No.1 and 2 as they are not liable for any Act and Omission committed by the Agent i.e. OP No.3, who has fraudulently misappropriated the premium collected from the complainant. Besides this, complainant is also is liable for his own wrong act because he has issued the cheque in favour of OP No.3 instead of LIC. Moreover, the complainant has not placed on file any terms and conditions of the policy wherein it is mentioned that agent is authorized to collect the premium amount. Moreover, the insurance policy was lying in foreclosed position as next premium due on 16.10.2007 was not received by OP Insurance Corporation.

11.              Resultantly, the complaint of the complainant is partly allowed with a direction to OP  No.1 and 2 to make the payment of fund value of first premium paid as per terms and conditions of the insurance policy. The complainant is also at liberty to recover the amount of premium from OP No.3 which was not deposited by OP No.3 with the Life Insurance Corporation after collecting the same from the complainant and can also lodged the criminal case/recovery suit against him as per law, if so advised. Copies of this order be supplied to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced in open court.02.08.2017

 

 

                                                              (DHARAMPAL)

                                                              PRESIDENT

                                                              D.C.D.R.F.YAMUNA NAGAR

                                                              AT JAGADHRI

 

 

     (VEENA RANI SHEOKAND)         (S.C.SHARMA)

      MEMBER                                         MEMBER

 

 

Note: Each and every page of this order has been duly signed by me.

 

                                                     (DHARAMPAL)

                                                     PRESIDENT

                                                     D.C.D.R.F.YAMUNA NAGAR

                                                     AT JAGADHRI