Order by:
Sh.Amrinder Singh Sidhu, President
1. This Consumer Complaint has been received by transfer vide order dated 26.11.2021 of Hon’ble President, State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab at Chandigarh under section 48 of CPA Act, vide letter No.04/22/2021/4 C.P.A/38 dated 17.1.2022 from District Consumer Commission, Ludhiana to District Consumer Commission, Moga to decide the same in Camp Court at Ludhiana and said order was ordered to be affected from 14th March, 2022.
2. The complainants have filed the instant complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (now section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019) on the allegations that the complainants are the legal heirs of Sarvesh Kumar who has since expired. Sarvesh Kumar during his life time, had purchased a policy bearing No. 302313989 commencing from 02.03.2013 from Opposite Parties the maturity date of which was February, 2029. The installments were paid by the policy holder quarterly and the installment was of Rs.7656/- and there was no default of any installment. Said Sarvesh Kumar paid the installments upto August, 2014 through Opposite Party No.3 agent and on 08.08.2014 said Sarvesh Kumar paid the installment to Opposite Party No.3 who assured that the said amount be deposited to Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 within 2 or 3 days. Unfortunately, Sarvesh Kumar died on 06.12.2014 by falling from staircase. After the death of Sarvesh Kumar, the complainants being legal heirs lodged the claim against the policy with the Opposite Parties No.1 and 2, but the Opposite Parties refused to pay any amount and told that the policy in question has already been elapsed and nothing is payable as death claim under this policy and as such, there is deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties. Vide instant complaint, the complainant has sought the following reliefs.
a) The Opposite Parties may be directed to pay the policy amount of Rs.6.25 lakhs alongwith interest @ 12% per annum and also pay compensation amounting to Rs.1 lakh for causing them mental tension and harassment.
3. Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 appeared through counsel and contested the complaint by filing the written version taking preliminary objections therein inter alia that the complaint filed by the complainant is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed as the complainant has attempted to misguide and mislead this District Consumer Commission. It is submitted that Opposite Party No.3 is not the authorised agent of Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 nor they ever deputed to collect the instalment from policy holder. Only those premiums are considered having been received by LIC Offices against receipts. It is admitted that Sarvesh Kumar got issued policy in question under P-T-T, 165-16-16, with date of commencement as 11.02.2013 with sum assured of Rs.6,25,000/- with maturity date 11.02.2029. It is further submitted that last premium paid in the policy was 25.07.2014 for the premium due in May 2014. It is wrong that Sarvesh Kumar regularly paid the instalments due in the first week of August 2014, whereas the premium due in August 2014 was paid on 3.1.2015 i.e. after the date of death of the policy holder when the policy was lying in lapsed condition. Any deposit of premium amount after the death of the life assured is of no consequence. It is an act of malafide that without intimating about the death of the policy holder, the premium amount which was due in August, 2014 was paid on 3.1.2015 and thereafter, death claim was intimated on 15.04.2015. The policy was in lapsed condition on the date of death of life assured and nothing was payable under the policy as per the terms and conditions of the policy. On merits, Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 took up the same and similar pleas as taken up by them in the preliminary objections. Hence, the instant complaint is not maintainable and the same may be dismissed with costs.
4. Opposite Party No.3 appeared through counsel and contested the complaint by filing the written version taking preliminary objections therein inter alia that the complaint filed by the complainant is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed as the complainant has attempted to misguide and mislead this District Consumer Commission. It is submitted that Opposite Party No.3 never received any instalment of premium as alleged by the complainant from deceased and his family members. However, from time to time, the Opposite Party No.3 always reminded to policy holder to deposit the due instalment in time. Moreover, Opposite Party No.3 is not aware about the death of policy holder and was also not aware that instalment of premium was due at the time of death of life assured. Hence, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party No.3.
5. In order to prove his case, the complainant has not tendeed any document despite availing repeated adjournments and hence evidence of the complainants was closed by order dated 25.03.2021.
6. On the other hand, to rebut the evidence of the complainant, Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 also tendered into evidence the affidavit Ex.RA alongwith copies of documents Ex.R1 to Ex.R8 and similarly, Opposite Party No.3 tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex.RA3 and copy of document Ex.R1 and closed their respective evidence.
7. We have heard the ld.counsel for the parties and also gone through the documents placed on record.
8. Ld.counsel for the Complainants as well as ld.counsel for the Opposite Parties have mainly reiterated the facts as narrated in the complaint as well as in their written statements respectively. We have perused the rival contention of the ld.counsel for the parties. The only contention of the complainant is that policy holder was regularly depositing the premium amount against the policy and oftenly, got depositing the premium through Opposite Party No.3, but after the death of life assured Sarvesh Kumar, the Opposite Parties refused to make the policy amount and hence, deficiency is writ large on the part of the Opposite Parties. On the other hand, ld.counsel for the Opposite Parties has repelled the aforesaid contention of the complainants on the ground that Opposite Party No.3 is not the authorised agent of Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 nor they ever deputed to collect the instalment from policy holder. Only those premiums are considered having been received by LIC Offices against receipts. It is admitted that Sarvesh Kumar got issued policy in question under P-T-T, 165-16-16, with date of commencement as 11.02.2013 with sum assured of Rs.6,25,000/- with maturity date 11.02.2029. It is further submitted that last premium paid in the policy was 25.07.2014 for the premium due in May 2014. It is wrong that Sarvesh Kumar regularly paid the instalments due in the first week of August 2014, whereas the premium due in August 2014 was paid on 3.1.2015 i.e. after the date of death of the policy holder when the policy was lying in lapsed condition. Any deposit of premium amount after the death of the life assured is of no consequence. It is an act of malafide that without intimating about the death of the policy holder, the premium amount which was due in August, 2014 was paid on 3.1.2015 and thereafter, death claim was intimated on 15.04.2015. The policy was in lapsed condition on the date of death of life assured and nothing was payable under the policy as per the terms and conditions of the policy. The rebut the aforesaid contention of the ld.counsel for the Opposite Parties, the complainants have failed to placed on record any iota of evidence to prove that the life assured paid all the premium amount whereas Opposite Party No.3 has specifically denied that he was not authorised to collect the premium amount on behalf of Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 and never taken any amount from said Sarvesh Kumar for depositing the premium amount against the policy in question with Opposite Parties No.1 and 2. Moreover, despite availing
sufficient opportunities, the complainant has failed to produce any evidence on record in their favour and rather chose to get close their evidence by order even without tendering affidavit in evidence and as such, we hold that the complainants have failed to prove any deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties.
9. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, the instant complaint stands dismissed. Keeping in view the peculiar circumstances of the case, the parties are left to bear their own costs. Copies of the order be furnished to the parties free of cost by District Consumer Commission, Ludhiana and thereafter, the file be consigned to record room after compliance.
10. Reason for delay in deciding the complaint.
This Consumer Complaint was originally filed at District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (Now Commission) at Ludhiana and it keep pending over there until Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab vide letter No.04/22/2021/4 C.P.A/38 dated 17.1.2022 has transferred the instant Consumer Complaint alongwith Other Complaints to District Consumer Commission, Moga with directions to work on this file onward from 14th March, 2022 and accordingly District Consumer Commission, Moga has decided the present complaint at Camp Court, Ludhiana, as early as possible as it could decide the same
Announced in Open Commission at Camp Court, Ludhiana.
