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 complainant has 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 son of the complainant namely Sumesh Kumar got one LIC policy from Opposite Parties bearing No. 302670957 with date of commencement of policy 23.03.2015, date of commencement of risk 31.03.2015 and is maturity date was 28.03.2036 and the life assured was paying the premium regularly and last premium was paid on 26.08.2016 and thereafter, life assured in the month of January, 2017 met with an accident due to which the car in which he was sitting fall down in the canal and in the said accident, the life assured died on 17.01.2017. Thereafter, the complainant being his nominee lodged the claim for the reimbursement of the sum assured and completed all the formalities, but the Opposite Parties are dilly delayed the matter on one or other false pretext 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 amount of Rs.90,000/- on account of mental agony, physical harassment and also to pay insurance amount alongwith interest @ 18% per annum besides Rs.5000/- as litigation expenses.
3. Opposite Parties 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 Sumesh Kumar life assured had reportedly died on 17.01.2017 and on the date of his death, the policy was in lapsed condition as the last premium was paid on 26.08.2016 for the due period 03/2016 and thereafter, no premium was paid by the assured and due to non payment of the premium, the policy was lapsed. Since the policy was already lapsed on account of non payment of premium as on the date of death of assured, so the sum assured is not payable under the policy and hence, the complaint is liable to be dismissed. On merits, Opposite Parties 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. In order to prove her case, the complainant has tendered into evidence the affidavit Ex.CA alongwith copies of documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C8 and closed the evidence.
5. On the other hand, to rebut the evidence of the complainant, Opposite Parties also tendered into evidence the affidavit Ex.RA alongwith copies of documents Ex.R1 to Ex.R4 and closed the evidence.
6. We have heard the ld.counsel for the parties and also gone through the documents placed on record.
7. Ld.counsel for the Complainant 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 Sumesh Kumar son of the complainant got one LIC policy from Opposite Parties bearing No. 302670957 with date of commencement of policy 23.03.2015, date of commencement of risk 31.03.2015 and is maturity date was 28.03.2036 and the life assured was paying the premium regularly and last premium was paid on 26.08.2016 and thereafter, life assured in the month of January, 2017 met with an accident due to which the car in which he was sitting fall down in the canal and in the said accident, the life assured died on 17.01.2017. Thereafter, the complainant being his nominee lodged the claim for the reimbursement of the sum assured and completed all the formalities, but the Opposite Parties are dilly delayed the matter on one or other false pretext. On the other hand, ld.counsel for the Opposite Parties has repelled the aforesaid contention of the ld.counsel for the complainant on the ground that Sumesh Kumar life assured had reportedly died on 17.01.2017 and on the date of his death, the policy was in lapsed condition as the last premium was paid on 26.08.2016 for the due period 03/2016 and thereafter, no premium was paid by the assured and due to non payment of the premium, the policy was lapsed. Since the policy was already lapsed on account of non payment of premium as on the date of death of assured, so the sum assured is not payable under the policy and hence, the complaint is liable to be dismissed.
8. Perusal of the policy document Ex.R4 that Sumesh Kumar son of Moti Lal during his life time had purchased policy bearing No. 302670957 for a sum assured of Rs.5 lakhs and the premium of Rs.14,079/- of the said policy was payable half yearly. As per the document Ex.R1, the life assured during his life time has paid only three half yearly instalments of Rs.14079/- each as themselves admitted by the Opposite Parties in their written version as well as duly sworn affidavit Ex.RA that Sumesh Kumar life assured had reportedly died on 17.01.2017 and on the date of his death, the policy was in lapsed condition as the last premium was paid on 26.08.2016 for the due period 03/2016 and thereafter, no premium was paid by the assured and due to non payment of the premium, the policy was lapsed. But we are of the view that if the complainant being the nominee of life assured was not entitled to get the full sum assured of Rs.5 lakhs, she is definitely entitled to get the deposited amount of Rs.42,237/- alongwith interest. But on the other hand, the Opposite Parties have failed to even refund the deposited amount to the complainant after the death of her young son in a accident. On this count, the complainant has sought the compensation amounting to Rs.90,000/- on account of mental agony, physical harassment and also to pay insurance amount alongwith interest @ 18% per annum besides Rs.5000/- as litigation expenses, but we are of the view that the claim for compensation to the tune of Rs.90,000/- appears to be exorbitant and excessive. The rationale behind grant of compensation has been to compensate a party of the loss occasioned by it. It is none of the intention of the legislature while legislating the Consumer Protection Act to enrich a particular party at the cost of the other. The compensation has to be awarded in commensuration with the loss occasioned to the complainant. In our considered view, ends of justice would be fully met if the complainant is awarded lump-sum compensation to the tune of Rs.10,000/- and we award the same accordingly.
9. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, we partly allow the complaint of the complainant against Opposite Parties and direct the Opposite Parties to refund the deposited amount of Rs.42,237/- (Rupees forty two thousands two hundred thirty seven only) i.e.(Rs.14079/- x 3 instalments) as detailed above (if already not refunded till date) to the complainant alongwith interest @ 8% per annum from the date of its respective deposits till its actual realization. Opposite Parties are also directed to pay Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousands only) as lumpsum compensation to the complainant. Compliance of this order be made by Opposite Parties within 60 days from the date of receipt of the copy of this order, failing which the Complainant shall be at liberty to get the order enforced through the indulgence of this Commission. 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.
