Punjab

Ludhiana

CC/21/69

Sarabjit Kaur - Complainant(s)

Versus

LIC Of India - Opp.Party(s)

Nitin Jain

28 Jul 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, LUDHIANA.

                                                Complaint No:69 dated 11.02.2021.                                                 Date of decision: 28.07.2023.

 

Sarabjit Kaur W/o. Baldev Singh, aged 47 years, resident of H. No.79, Gali No.4, Ram Nagar, 33 Ft. Road, Ludhiana.                                                                                                                                               ..…Complainant

                                                Versus

1. Life Insurance Corporation of India, 4^th Floor, West Wing, Yogakshema Jeevan Bhima Marg, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021 through its Chairman/Executive Officer/Authorized Signatory.
2. Life Insurance Corporation of India, Branch office Canal Colony, Pakhowal Road, Ludhiana through its Manager/Executive Officer/Authorized Signatory.                                                                                                                                             …..Opposite parties 

Complaint Under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act.

QUORUM:

SH. SANJEEV BATRA, PRESIDENT

SH. JASWINDER SINGH, MEMBER

MS. MONIKA BHAGAT, MEMBER

 

COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES:

For complainant             :         Sh. Nitin Jain, Advocate.

For OPs                          :         Ms. Anju Khullar, Advocate.

 

ORDER

PER SANJEEV BATRA, PRESIDENT

1.                In brief, the facts of the complaint are that on 28.02.2008, the complainant obtained a LIC’s NEW BIMA GOLD policy from the opposite parties vide policy No.300718867 having validity 28.02.2008 to 28.02.2024 and was paying regular premium. According to the complainant, as per terms and conditions of the policy 15% of the sum assured was to be paid to the complainant under the basis plan at the end of each 4^th, 8^th and 12^th policy year but the opposite parties have paid 15% of the sum assured only two times. The complainant many times approached and requested the opposite parties to pay remaining 15% of the sum assured under the basis plan but they postponed the matter on one pretext or the other. The complainant stated that the act and conduct of the opposite parties amounts to deficiency in service due to which he suffered mental agony and physical harassment for which he is entitled for compensation from the opposite parties.  In the end, the complainant has prayed for issuing directing to the opposite parties to pay the claim amount of Rs.15,000/- along with interest @12% per annum and also to pay compensation of Rs.70,000/- besides litigation expenses of Rs.20,000/-.

2.                 Upon notice, the opposite parties appeared and filed joint written statement by taking preliminary objections that the complaint is not maintainable, the complainant has not come to the court with clean hands etc. The opposite parties stated that as per the record of LIC, it has made three payments to the complainant till date, the detail of which is reproduced as under:-

a)      SB due on 28.02.2012 stands paid on 17.01.2012 vide cheque No.0044123 dt. 28.02.2012 of LIC A/C HDFC Bank for RS.12,023.10 after deduction of Rs.2960/- (2847+113.9) for unpaid premium due on 28.08.2211 with interest thereon. The cheque was issued at MASH Deptt. D.O. Ludhiana and stands encashed on 06.03.2012.

b)      SB due on 28.02.2016 stands paid on 22.01.2016 vide Transaction No.16162 and stands credited on 29.02.2016 in SBI Mundian Kalan, SB A/C No.34735852200.

c)       SB due on 28.02.2020 stands paid on 25.01.2020 vide Transaction No.39088 and stands credited on 28.02.2020 in SBI, Mundian Kalan, SB A/C. No.34735852200.

Further as per record of LIC, al the payments have been made. The complainant has not mentioned that which payment has not been received by her. The opposite parties further averred that they requested HDFC Bank through email to produce information regarding the cheque bearing No.0044123 dated 28.02.2012 issued by LIC of India for Rs.12,039.10 is credited but no information was submitted by HDFC Bank. The complainant has filed the complaint after apse of 8 years with malafide intention and the same be dismissed on the ground of limitation. The opposite parties denied any deficiency in service on their part.

                   On merits, the opposite parties reiterated the crux of averments made in the preliminary objections. However, the opposite parties admitted the issuance of the policy under TT 179-16 with DOC 28.02.2018 and last date of policy premium was 13.06.2021. The opposite parties have denied that there is any deficiency of service and have also prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

3.                The complainant has filed replication to the written statement reiterating the facts mentioned in the complaint and controverting those mentioned in the written statement.

4.                In support of her claim, the complainant tendered her affidavit Ex. CA in which she reiterated the allegations and the claim of compensation as stated in the complaint. The complainant also tendered documents Ex. C1 is the copy of insurance policy and closed the evidence.

5.                On the other hand, the counsel for the opposite parties tendered affidavit Ex. RA of Sh. Sant Ram Singh, Manager, Legal LIC of India, Ludhiana along with documents Ex. R1 is the copy insurance policy, Ex. R2 is the copy of cheque No.044123 dated 28.02.2012 and closed the evidence.

                   The opposite parties moved an application for summoning record of HDFC Bank regarding cheque No.044123 dated 28.02.2012 issued in favour of complainant Sarabjit Kaur which was disposed of subject to costs of Rs.500/- vide order dated 17.11.2022 by allowing the opposite parties to place the documents on record and as such, the counsel for the opposite parties tendered documents Ex. R5 i.e. copy of letter dated 07.11.2022 written to HDFC Bank, Ex. R6 is the copy of certificate issued by HDFC Bank.

                   Further, vide order dated 17.01.2023, the concerned Manager of opposite parties was directed to appear in person and in pursuance of which Sh. Sanjeev Sood, Administrative Officer in LIC, Divisional Office, Dugri appeared on 08.02.2023 and suffered his statement by producing reconciliation statement of outstanding cheques for the month of February 2012 and March 2012 along with the balance in their HDFC Bank account No.13802300000013 which shows the outstanding balance in their HDFC Bank account for the month of February 2012 and March 2012. Further, the said witness stated that the statement for February 2012 shows that the cheque No.44123 for the amount of Rs.12,039/- was outstanding as on 28.02.2012 and same was not outstanding as on March 2012 which clearly shows that the cheque had already been encashed in favour of Sarabjit Kaur and as per certificate issued by HDFC Bank the cheque has already been encashed in the name of Sarabjit Kaur. The said witness also produced documents i.e. closing balance of the opposite parties on 31.03.2012, reconciliation of account statement for the month of 03/2012 of LIC, closing balance of opposite parties on 29.02.2012, reconciliation of account statement for month of 02/2012.

6.                We have heard the arguments of the counsel for the parties and also gone through the complaint, replication, affidavit and annexed documents and written reply along with affidavit and documents produced on record by both the parties. 

7.                On 28.02.2008, the complainant obtained LIC’s NEW BIMA GOLD policy Ex. C1 for a term of 16 years i.e. up to 28.02.2024 and 15% of the sum assured under base plan was payable at the end of each 4^th, 8^th and 12^th policy year. The grievance of the complainant is that one of such pay back amount has not credited in her account.

8.                On the other hand, the opposite parties specifically pleaded the dates and amounts which have been paid to the complainant in pursuance of the terms and conditions of the policy.  It is evident from the pleadings and the evidence of the parties that the complainant was fully aware of the fact that she had received the amount of 8^th and 12^th year but she was disputing the amount for the 4^th year which was payable in the year 2012 but in order to bring her case within the period of limitation, the complainant intentionally concealed this fact and camouflaged the pleadings and the contents of the affidavit in such a way so that this Commission may be misled. As such, the complainant has failed to discharge her initial burden of proving deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.

9.                In this regard, reference can be made to SGS India Ltd. Vs Dolphin International Ltd. in Civil Appeal No.5759 of 2009 decided on 06.10.2021 (LL 2021 SC 544) by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India whereby it has been held as under:-

’19.  The onus of proof of deficiency in service is on the complainant in the complaints under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. It is the complainant who had approached the Commission, therefore, without any proof of deficiency, the opposite party cannot be held responsible for deficiency in service.

In the above cited case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has placed reliance on its own judgment reported as Ravneet Singh Bagga v. KLM Royal Dutch Airlines & Anr. whereby it has been held that the burden of proving the deficiency in service is upon the person who alleges it. “6. The deficiency in service cannot be alleged without attributing fault, imperfection, shortcoming or inadequacy in the quality, nature and manner of performance which is required to be performed by a person in pursuance of a contract or otherwise in relation to any service. The burden of proving the deficiency in service is upon the person who alleges it. The complainant has, on facts, been found to have not established any wilful fault, imperfection, shortcoming or inadequacy in the service of the respondent.”

‘20. This Court in a Judgment reported as Indigo Airlines v. Kalpana Rani Debbarma & Ors. (LL 2021 SC 544) held the initial onus to substantiate the factum of deficiency in service committed by the opposite party was primarily on the complaint. This Court held as under:-

“28. In our opinion, the approach of the Consumer Fora is in complete disregard of the principles of pleadings and burden of proof. First, the material facts constituting deficiency in service are blissfully absent in the complaint as filed. Second, the initial onus to substantiate the factum of deficiency in service committed by the ground staff of the Airlines at the airport after issuing boarding passes was primarily on the respondents. That has not been discharged by them. The Consumer Fora, however, went on to unjustly shift the onus on the appellants because of their failure to produce any evidence. In law, the burden of proof would shift on the appellants only after the respondents/complainants had discharged their initial burden in establishing the factum of deficiency in service.”

10.              On the other hand, the opposite parties were categoric about the payment since inception of the proceedings and they have specifically stated that the amount stands paid on 28.02.2012 vide cheque No.044123 dated 28.02.2012 for a sum of Rs.12,023.10 after deduction of an amount of Rs.2960/- for unpaid premium due on 28.08.2021 and also produced certificate Ex. R6 from the concerned bank regarding encashment of the cheque so issued in favour of the complainant. Still in order to set the controversy at rest vide order dated 17.01.2023, the concerned manager of opposite party No.2 was summoned. Mr. Sanjeev Sood,           Administrative Officer in LIC, Divisional Office, Dugri appeared and made statement along with documents, detailed above in para No.5        hereinbefore. In the given facts and circumstances, the opposite parties have been able to prove the factum of payment in the year 2012 and there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties .

11.              As a sequel of above discussion, the complaint fails and the same is hereby dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Copies of the order be supplied to the parties free of costs as per rules. File be indexed and consigned to record room.

 

 

12.              Due to huge pendency of cases, the complaint could not be decided within statutory period.

 

(Monika Bhagat)          (Jaswinder Singh)                      (Sanjeev Batra)                          Member                            Member                                       President         

 

Announced in Open Commission.

Dated:28.07.2023.

Gobind Ram.

 

 

Sarabjit Kaur Vs Life Insurance Corporation of India               CC/21/69

Present:       Sh. Nitin Jain, Advocate for complainant.

                   Ms. Anju Khullar, Advocate for OPs.

 

                   Arguments heard. Vide separate detailed order of today, the complaint fails and the same is hereby dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Copies of the order be supplied to the parties free of costs as per rules. File be indexed and consigned to record room.

 

(Monika Bhagat)          (Jaswinder Singh)                      (Sanjeev Batra)                       Member                      Member                                       President         

 

Announced in Open Commission.

Dated:28.07.2023.

Gobind Ram.