Complainant through Adv. Smt. Shah
Opponents through Adv. Smt. Naik
*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*--*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*--
Per : Mr. V. P. Utpat, President Place : PUNE
// J U D G M E N T //
(25/06/2013)
1] This complaint is filed by the aggrieved consumer against the LIC. The complainant is a resident of Shivaji Nagar. The opponents are various authorities of LIC. The complainant has purchased a pension policy on 31/03/1999 with 10 years tenure and Annuity of Rs. 2630/- per month for life time of maturity from 28/5/2009. The premium for the said policy was Rs. 816/- per month. The complainant has paid premium for 10 years regularly and he requested the opponent for final settlement and asked for commencement of the Annuity as per the policy document on 08/05/2009. He was informed in the month of May 2009 that there was mistake in the calculation and he will receive Annuity to the tune of Rs. 1950/- per month instead of 2630/- per month. The complainant was shocked due to the said information and he approached the opponent. But the opponent did not pay much heed to his request and directed him to accept Annuity to the tune of Rs. 1950/-. Ultimately, he had accepted the said amount from July 2009 onwards. It
is the case of complainant that there is clear cut deficiency in service. The opponent has turned from its agreement. The opponent should be directed to pay difference of payment of Rs. 680/- per month from 28/5/2009 onwards. He has also asked compensation for deficiency in service and cost of the litigation.
2] The opponent resisted the claim by filing written version. It is the case of the opponent that there is no deficiency in service and there is bona fide mistake of the employee of the opponent while calculating the Annuity. As per table, which is provided by the opponent, the Annuity, which is paid to the complainant is correct and there is no deficiency in service. The complainant is entitled to receive an amount of Rs. 1950/- per month only and the amount of Rs, 2630/- was wrongly mentioned in the policy. The opponent has prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
3] After scrutinizing the documentary evidence, which is produced before this Forum, hearing the arguments of both the parties and considering pleadings, the following points arise for my determination. The points, findings and the reasons thereon are as follows-
Sr.No. | POINTS | FINDINGS |
1. | Whether complainant has proved that the opponent has caused deficiency in service by refusing the Annuity, which was agreed? | In the affirmative |
2. | What order? | Complaint is partly allowed |
REASONS :-
4] The admitted facts in the present proceeding are that the complainant has purchased pension policy and deposited monthly premium of Rs. 816/- per month for 10 years from 31/3/1999 to 28/5/2009. It is also not disputed by the opponent that as per the terms and conditions of the policy, the opponent agreed to pay monthly Annuity of Rs. 2630/- to the complainant through out his life. The learned Advocate for the opponent argued before me that, an amount of Rs. 2630/-, which is mentioned in the policy is wrongly calculated and the complainant is entitled to receive an amount of Rs. 1950/- only. She has also argued before me that the table, which is provided by the opponent, is prevailing over the contract between the parties. It is significant to note that, complainant has deposited premium for 10 years regularly without any break and during the period of 10 years, the opponent has not raised any grievance about depositing less premium. The policy is an agreement between the parties. The opponent agreed to pay monthly Annuity of Rs. 2630/-, but it has reduced the monthly Annuity to Rs. 1950/- unilaterally. It appears from the whole episode that there is gross negligence and deficiency in service on the part of the opponent. During the whole tenure of 10 years, the opponent never informed that, premium, which is paid by the complainant is less and he will not be entitled to Annuity of Rs. 2630/-. The learned Advocate for the opponent argued before me that the opponent is a Central Government Undertaking and public money is invested in the same. Hence, this fact should be considered while awarding compensation. It is significant to note that the complainant is a customer, who was under impression for 10 years that he will receive monthly pension of Rs. 2630/- and after completion 10 years, he was informed that he will get an amount of Rs. 1950/- only. There was no negligence or fault on the part of the complainant. Under such circumstances, I held that he is entitled to get relief of Annuity, which was agreed between the parties. I held that the complainant has proved that there is deficiency in service on the part of the opponent. In the result, I answer the points accordingly and pass the following order,
** ORDER **
1. Complaint is partly allowed.
2. It is hereby declared that the opponents
have caused deficiency in service by not
paying agreed Annuity to the complainant.
3. The opponents are directed to pay an amount
of Rs. 2,630/- per month from June 2009
throughout the life of the complainant. They
are directed to pay difference within 3 months
from the date of order.
4. The opponents are directed to pay compensation
to the tune of Rs. 10,000/- (Rs. Ten Thousand
only) to the complainant by way of deficiency in
service, an amount of Rs. 5, 000/- (Rs. Five
Thousand only) for mental agony and physical
Suffering and an amount of Rs. 2,000/- (Rs. Two
Thousand only) towards cost of the litigation.
The opponent is at liberty to recover the said
amount from the concerned officer or employee,
who are responsible for the wrong calculation.
5. Copies of this order be furnished to
the parties free of cost.
