BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BHIWANI.    

                                                                   Complaint No.: 205 of 2016.

                                                                    Date of Institution: 15.09.2016.

                                                                   Date of Decision:  04.06.2019.

Fateh Chand Dehdan, A. D. A. O/o Chief Administrator, HUDA, Sector-6, Panchkula, at present D. D. A. O/o District Attorney, Bhiwani, Tehsil and District Bhiwani.

                                                                             ….Complainant.

                                      Versus

1.       Life Insurance Corporation of India, branch office at near Mini Secretariat, Bhiwani through its Branch Manager.

2.       Life Insurance Corporation of India, Bays No.71-72, Sector-2, Panchkula – 134109 through its Branch Manager/Authorized Person.

                                                                              …...Opposite Parties.

                   COMPLAINT UNDER SECTIONS 12 AND 13 OF

                   THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986.

Before: -      Hon’ble Mr. Manjit Singh Naryal, President.

                   Hon’ble Mr. Parmod Kumar, Member.

                   Hon’ble Mrs. Saroj Bala Bohra, Member.

Present:       Shri Rajesh Nagar, Advocate for the complainant.

Shri Mukesh Jangra, Advocate for the OPs.

ORDER:-

PER MANJIT SINGH NARYAL, PRESIDENT

                   Brief facts of the case are that the complainant has taken a Jeevan Surbhi policy No.171507004 table and term 106-15 (12) on 20.11.1997 for a sum assured Rs.1,00,000/- and the maturity of the said policy was 20.11.2012.  It is alleged that the complainant has deposited the premium of insurance at Bhiwani for so many times and at the time of maturity of the policy, the complainant was posted as ADA in the office of G. M. Haryana Roadways, Bhiwani.  It is further alleged that surviving 8 years from commencement-30% of sum assured i.e. Rs.30,000/- was payable in the month of November, 2005 and after surviving 12 years from commence-ment – 40% of sum assured i.e. Rs.40,000/- was payable in the month of November, 2009, but the same were not paid within time, despite requests made by complainant to Branch Manager, Panchkula vide letter dated 17.7.2010 and 23.8.2010.  It is further alleged that when complainant has come into the notice vide letter of OP No. 2, No. nil dated nil, that a cheque of Rs.40,000/- was lying in the office of OPs due to non-availability of latest address, then the complainant has wrote letter dated 15.12.2010 and account number was also written in that letter and again on 30.12.2010 & 25.8.2011 complainant requested the OPs for depositing said cheque in his bank account alongwith interest.  It is further alleged that ultimately, the complainant received said cheque under protest, which was due in the month of November, 2009 and the complainant has also wrote a letter to the Branch Manager, Panchkula on dated 15.9.2011 to give prevailing rate of interest on said amount within 15 days after receipt of the letter, but the OPs did not pay the interest.  It is further alleged that the complainant has not received the amount of Rs.66,500/- surviving on date of maturity – vested bonuses only because the policy was matured on 20.11.2012.  It is further alleged that ultimately the complainant has requested the OP No. 2 vide application dated 15.4.2013 for releasing his maturity amount of Rs. 66,500/- and thereafter made several oral as well as written requests, but to no effect.  It is further alleged that after lapse of 3½ years, the OPs have not paid the maturity value as well as interest of his aforesaid policy, then the complainant sent a request to OP No. 2 on 13.5.2016 to pay all the benefits of aforesaid policy alongwith interest, upon which the OP No. 2 has deposited an amount of Rs.66,500/- on 31.5.2016 in the bank account of complainant maintained with State Bank of India, but the OPs have not paid the interest on the delayed payment.  Hence, it amounts to deficiency in service on the part of OPs and hence, this complaint.

2.                On appearance, the OP filed written statement alleging therein that the policy in question was taken by the complainant from Branch Office Panchkula and no part of cause of action arose to the complainant within the territorial jurisdiction of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Bhiwani, therefore, the Forum has no jurisdiction to try and decided the present complaint.  It is further alleged that the complainant had obtained the LIC policy with DOC 201197, S.A. 1,00,000/- and TNT 106-15 (12) and date of maturity was 20.11.2012 from Branch Office, Panchkula.  It is further alleged that the policy holder has not got his address changed till the maturity in the record of OPs and his address as per the record of OPs is Civil Courts, Sector-12, Faridabad, so intimation of S.B. due on 20.11.2009 was sent at the available address i.e. at Faridabad address on 15.9.2009 and cheque No.557250 dated 20.11.2009 was sent at Faridabad address.  It is further alleged that again in lieu of cheque No.685276 dated 11.1.2011 was issued which was encashed on 12.9.2011, S. B. payment through NEFT could not be made as the complainant got registered NEFT at Rohtak Branch on 14.5.2016.  It is further alleged that all correspondence was sent at his Faridabad address which was not got changed by the complainant till maturity of the policy.  It is further alleged that the policy maturity was due on 20.11.2012 and intimation of maturity was sent on 10.9.2012 followed by reminders on 23.11.2012, 21.12.2012, 1.2.2013 and 8.5.2013 at his Faridabad address.  It is further alleged that on maturity of policy, some mandatory requirements i.e. policy bond, discharge bond and NEFT detail have to be submitted, but same were not submitted by the complainant, so due to want of requirements, the maturity amount could not be paid in November, 2012.  It is further alleged that the complainant reported to Branch Office, Panchkula and submitted requirement in May, 2016 and thereafter the payment was credited in his account on 31.5.2016 through NEFT.  It is further alleged that the OP No. 1 has no concern with the policy in question.  It is further alleged that the complainant had not got his address changed and correspondence was being done by the Branch Office at Faridabad address provided by the complainant, so the LIC is not liable to pay any interest.  Hence, there is no deficiency in service on the part of OPs and complaint of the complainant is liable to be dismissed with costs.

3.                Ld. counsel for the complainant has placed on record duly sworn affidavit of the complainant as Ex. CW1/A and documents Annexure-C1 to Annexure C21 and closed the evidence.

4.                On the other hand, the OPs has placed on record documents Annexure R1 to R22 in support of its case and closed the evidence.

5.                We have heard ld. counsel for both the parties at length.

6.                After hearing the learned counsel for both the parties and having gone through the material available on the records, we are of the considered view that complaint of the complainant deserves acceptance.  There are some facts which are admitted by both the parties.  It is admitted that fact that the complainant had obtained the LIC policy with DOC 201197, S.A. 1,00,000/- and TNT 106-15 (12) and date of maturity was 20.11.2012 from Branch Office, Panchkula.  It is also admitted fact that the payment of maturity amount of Rs.66,500/- was made to the complainant on 31.5.2016.  Ld. counsel for the OPs has argued that the District Forum at Bhiwani has no jurisdiction to try and entertain the present complaint, because no cause of action has accrued to the complainant within the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum, as the insurance policy was issued at Panchkula.  This plea of the OPs has no substance at all, because under Section-11 (2) (a) of the C.P. Act, a complaint shall be instituted where opposite party resides or carry on business or has a branch office at the time of institution of complaint and the L.I.C. has its braches at Bhiwani.  It is the admitted fact by both the parties that the L.I.C. has its braches all over India including Bhiwani.  It is also not disputed by OPs that the payment of premium or installments of insurance policies are being accepted by the L.I.C. in any branch office all over India.  In present case the complainant had deposited an installment vide receipt dated 6.12.2007 with the OPs at their branch office at Bhiwani, so cause of action partly has arisen in favour of the complainant at Bhiwani.  So, we are of the view that when OPs have received the amount at Bhiwani branch, thus, in our view the District Forum at Bhiwani has the jurisdiction to try, entertain and decide the present complaint.

7.                The further plea taken by the OPs is that in their record the complainant has not got changed his address and they have kept on making correspondence to the complainant on his given record i.e. at Faridabad.  In our view the plea taken by the OPs is not tenable at all, because the complainant has made several written requests to the OPs for the payment of amount due and he also given the address in his applications.  Complainant has successfully proved his case by placing on record cogent and convincing documentary evidence, whereas the OPs have failed to rebut the case of the complainant.  The OPs have failed to make the payment of maturity amount of Rs.66,500/- to the complainant, despite several written requests made by complainant.  The complainant has placed on record copies of his requests as Annexure C17, C18 and C19.  So, in our view there is a considerable delay in payment of maturity amount to the complainant by the OPs and the complainant is entitled to get interest of the delay payment.  As regards payment of Rs.40,000/-, there is no delay on the part of the OPs, because the OPs have written several letter to the complainant for the above payment, but the complainant has himself failed in doing the needful for receiving the payment of Rs.40,000/-.  So, in our view the complainant is not entitled to get any interest on the amount of Rs.40,000/-.

8.                Therefore, in view of the above facts and circumstances, the complaint of complainant is partly allowed.  Thus, the OPs are directed to: -

i.        To pay interest @ 6% per annum on the maturity amount of Rs. 66,500/- from the date of maturity i.e. 20.11.2012 till date of actual payment i.e. 31.5.2016.

          The compliance of the order shall be made within 30 days from the date of the order.  Certified copies of the order be sent to parties free of costs.  File be consigned to the record room, after due compliance.

Announced in open Forum.

Dated: - 04.06.2019.               

(Saroj Bala Bohra)                   (Parmod Kumar)        (Manjit Singh Naryal)

Member.                        Member.                         President,

                                                                      District Consumer Disputes

                                                                     Redressal Forum, Bhiwani.