Complainant Jit Ram through the present complaint filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short, ‘the Act’) has prayed that the opposite parties be directed to make the payment of full insured amount of insurance policy as per rules alongwith all vested benefits alongwith interest @ 18% P.A. from the date of maturity till actual realization. Opposite parties be further directed to pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation for mental agony, physical harassment and deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties alongwith Rs.3,000/- as litigation expenses.

2.        The case of the complainant in brief is that he was serving in the office of opposite party no.3 and retired from the services on 31.1.2014. He was a member of C.P.F. (Contributory Provident Fund) from the joining of the duty and was subscribed towards the C.P.F. during his whole service. The fund was maintained by the opposite party no.2 and regular deduction was made from his salary by the opposite party no.3 and the same was sent to opposite party no.2 continuously in G.P.F. Account No.1977/253. He has further pleaded that after joining his duty, the opposite party no.2 issued an Endowment Assurance Policy bearing  No.162523675. Date of commencement was 23.10.2003. The policy was to mature on the date of his retirement. The total sum assured was Rs.2,00,000/-. It was the duty of the opposite party no.2 to send a regular premium towards the policy as agreed. He was assured by the office of opposite party no.2 that they will be responsible for the payment of the installments of premiums as agreed and the amount will be payable to him after his retirement. He has next pleaded that he applied for the release of the amount to the opposite party no.2 but the opposite party no.2 vide its letter bearing No.LD/ASR/101/Rejection/19 dated 2.4.2014 rejected his claim on the ground that the LIC amount not received. There was no fault on his part as he was regularly contributing the premium towards contribution which was being deducted from his salary regularly by opposite party no.2 and the same had been sent to the opposite party no.3 without any break. But the opposite party no.2 did not make his full insured amount. Moreover, no information regarding pension plan under which the policy was issued was given to him by the opposite parties. This decision of the opposite party no.2 is liable to be set aside and he is entitled to receive the full amount of insurance policy alongwith all vested benefits. Thus, there is clear cut deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. Hence this complaint.

3.       Upon notice, the opposite parties appeared through their counsel and filed their written replies separately. Opposite party no.1 in its reply taking the preliminary objections that Jit Ram, complainant purchased an insurance policy bearing no.162523675 for a sum assured Rs.2,00,000/-, Table Term: 14-10 with date of commencement 23.10.2003 from Branch Office Chandigarh-II. The premiums were paid upto October 2003 only. Since the premiums are paid for one year only, hence the policy does not acquire any surrender or maturity value. The policy premiums are not paid by the policy holder or opposite party no.2 i.e. The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, hence the maturity value is not payable. Hence the present complaint is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed on this score only; the complainant should have approached the office of “Insurance Ombudsman”, Chandigarh for redressal of his grievance, if any and the complainant is estopped to file the instant complaint as there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties as defined in section (I) (g) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 under the heading 'Deficiency'. On merits, the same contentions have been repeated while denying and rebutting the other allegations made in the complaint and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

4.    Opposite party no.2 filed its reply taking the preliminary objection that the complainant and his employer i.e. opposite party no.3 failed to comply with the provisions of Para 64 of the Employees Provident Fund Scheme 1952, therefore  he is not entitled for any relief from the opposite party. The complaint may be dismissed on this score alone. On merits, it was submitted that the employer of the complainant i.e. opposite party no.3 forwarded Form No.14 (Application of financing L.I.C. Policy out of P.F.Account) in respect of Sh.Jit Ram son of Sh.Sewa Ram bearing account No.PN/1977/253 duly attested by the District Manager. On receipt of Form No.14 duly attested and verified by the Authorized Signatory the first installment of Rs.21,770/- was made to the L.I.C. Sector 17-B Chandigarh on 21.10.2003 but the Original L.I.C. Policy No.162523675 never received in the office of opposite party no.2 nor member or his employer forwarded the same to RPFC Amritsar. It was further submitted that the policy shall within six month of the first payment under paragraph 64 of the Employees Provident Fund Scheme, 1952 be assigned to the Central Board of Trustees by the Member and furnish the policy to the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner. In the instant case, neither the LIC policy assigned to the Central Board of Trustees nor delivered to the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner for making onwards payment to LIC from his Provident Fund Account. It was next stated that non receipt of assigned policy with the Central Board of Trustees or non receipt of original policy, the further payment/installments were not paid to the LIC, the member did not intimate the Regional P.F. Commissioner that the payment of installments to LIC is not remitted, whereas Annual Statements of Accounts were issued to his employer for onwards distribution among the members. It was further stated that there was fault on the part of the complainant as he failed to comply with Paragraph 64 of EPF Scheme 1952 that is why further installments were not paid to LIC. It was not a bogus or baseless ground and there was no reason to back out from its pious obligation of making payment in absence of compliance under paragraph 64 of the EPF Scheme 1952 by the member.  There is no deficiency or lapse on the part of the opposite parties and complainant himself responsible for it. All other averments made in the complaint have been denied and lastly the complaint has been prayed to be dismissed with costs.

5.     Opposite party no.3 filed its reply taking the preliminary objection that the complaint is not maintainable against opposite party because no allegation has been levelled against him by the complainant. On merits, it was submitted that the deduction made from the salary of the complainant towards the CPF by the opposite party and same was sent to opposite party no.2 continuously i.e. CPF Account number of the complainant. All other averments made in the complaint have been denied and lastly the complaint has been prayed to be dismissed with costs.         

6.    Complainant tendered into evidence his own affidavit Ex.C1 alongwith other documents Ex.C2 to Ex.C5 and closed the evidence. 

7.    Counsel for the opposite party no.1 tendered into evidence affidavit of Yogender Singh Sisodia Manager Ex.OP1/1 and closed the evidence.

8.     Counsel for the opposite party no.2 tendered into evidence affidavit of  Satya Pal Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner Ex.OP2/1 alongwith other document Ex.OP2/2 and closed the evidence.

9.       Counsel for the opposite party no.3 tendered into evidence affidavit of Kavita Bedi, Divisional manager Ex.OP-3/1 and closed the evidence.

10.     We have duly considered the pleadings of both the parties; heard the arguments advanced by their counsels and have also appreciated the evidence produced on record with the valuable assistance of the learned counsels for the purpose of adjudication of the present complaint.

11.      We find that the OP1 insurers have admittedly issued the Policy in question # 162523675 on 23.10.2003 for a Sum Assured of Rs.2.0 Lac upon receipt of the first premium of Rs.21,770/- duly remitted by the OP2 Commissioner on 21.10.2003; received in turn from the OP3 Employer Bank along with the requisite application etc. The OP1 insurers have also confirmed that the said Policy lapsed sans accrual of any surrender/maturity value on account of the non-receipt of any further premium. However, the OP insurers are silent on the issuance/dispatch of any intimation and/or notice of non-receipt of premium(s) and the subsequent ‘lapse’ of the Policy etc that was its obligatory duty as part of its customer service in the wake of the consumer rights awakening. And for this very lapse/reason, we hold the OP1 insurers as guilty of ‘deficiency in service’. Further, the OP2 P.F. Commissioner has also ignored/cold-shouldered its obligatory duty/liability of remittance of further premiums by taking alibi tic refuge in the academic/ technical defense in paragraph 64 of the EPF scheme, 1952 and the same shall not be fully acceptable. At the best, it can be termed as a contributory ‘lapse’ adding to the collective vows of the complainant. In case of non-delivery of the assigned Policy to the OP2, no efforts appear (on record) to have been made by them to wake up the negligent OP3 Bank and the ignorant Complainant to rise to the occasion and thus have also bruised the consumer rights of the complainant. We lastly find the OP3 employer Bank leading the titled opposite parties in infringing the consumer rights of the complainant employee towards whom it rather owed the obligatory but pious duty to protect the ‘employees-interests’. The OP3 Bank having forwarded the complainant’s LIP application to the OP1 LIC insurers through the OP2 PF commissioner shall be taken for granted to have known the relating rules governing the successful maturity of the said Policy and any lapse shall be treated as deficiency in service.     

12.       In the light of the all above, we hold all the three titled Opposite Parties guilty of contributory and negligent lapses accruing into the resultant financial loss to the complainant whom we somehow also find ‘non-vigilant’ and ‘un-watchful’ to his own interest to let the LIP lapse on account of the non-payment of the premiums and that dilutes the gravity of the ‘infringement of his consumer rights’ at the hands of the OPs. Thus, we partly allow the present complaint and ORDER the OP1 insurers to refund the received premium of Rs.21,770/- to the complainant whereas the OP2 Commissioner & the OP3 Bank shall jointly pay  Rs.2,000/- as compensation and cost of litigation; within 30 days of receipt of the copy of these orders.

13.     Copy of the order be communicated to the parties free of charges. After compliance, file be consigned to record.

                                                                 (Naveen Puri)

                                                                                          President     

ANNOUNCED:                                                              (Jagdeep Kaur)

May,05, 2015.                                                                           Member                           

*MK*