BEFORE THE DISTRICT FORUM: KURNOOL
Present: Sri. T.Sundara Ramaiah, B.Com B.L., President
And
Sri. M.Krishna Reddy, M.Sc., M.Phil., Male Member
Monday the 7th day of May, 2012
C.C.No.161/2011
Between:
Goli Munaiah,S/o Late G.Subbaramaiah,
H.No.31-5-8- 11-15-3, Sai Nagar, Behind ITC, Kurnool District - 518 002.
…Complainant
-Vs-
1. Life Insurance Corporation of India Limited, Represented by its Branch Manager,
D.No.40/36, River View Colony,Kurnool District - 518 004.
2. Senior Division Manager, Life Insurance Corporation of India Limited,
Post Box No.10, College Road, Kadapa - 516 004.
...Opposite ParTies
This complaint is coming on this day for orders in the presence of Sri P.Siva Sudarshan, Advocate for complainant and opposite party No.1 called absent and Sri G.Md.Habeebur Rahiman, Advocate for opposite party No.2 and upon perusing the material papers on record, the Forum made the following.
ORDER
(As per Sri. T.Sundara Ramaiah, President)
C.C. No. 161/2011
1. This complaint is filed under section 11 and 12 of C. P. Act, 1986 praying:-
- To direct the opposite parties to pay the maturity amount of Rs.34,659/- to the complainant with interest at 24% per annum from the date of maturity i.e., 31-07-2011 to till the date of realization along with benefits;
- To grant a sum of Rs.20,000/- towards mental agony;
- To grant a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards cost of the complaint;
And
- To grant any other relief as the Honourable Forum deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.
2. The case of the complainant in brief is as under:- In the year 2006 the complainant obtained Unit Gain Insurance Policy from the opposite parties. The said policy matured on 31-07-2011. After the date of maturity the complainant submitted original documents to the opposite parties for payment of maturity amount. The opposite parties not paid the said amount inspite of several requests of the complainant. Hence the complaint.
3. Opposite party No.1 set exparte.
Opposite party No.2 filed written version stating that the complaint is not maintainable. It is admitted that the complainant obtained the policy from the opposite parties by paying the premium of Rs.25,000/-. The period of the policy is from 31-07-2006 to 31-07-2011. After the date of maturity the complainant submitted the original documents to the opposite parties. The opposite parties paid the amount of Rs.35.962/- to the complainant through a cheque dated 20-12-2011. The same was encashed by the complainant on 29-12-2011. The complainant received the said amount towards full and final settlement. The complaint is liable to be dismissed.
4. On behalf of the complainant Ex.A1 is marked and sworn affidavit of the complainant is filed. On behalf of the opposite party No.2 Ex.B1 and Ex.B2 are marked and affidavit of opposite party No.2 is filed.
5. Both sides filed written arguments.
6. Now the points that arise for consideration are:
- Whether there is deficiency of service on the part of Opposite Parties?
- Whether the complainant is entitled for the reliefs as prayed for?
- To what relief?
7. POINTS i and ii:- Admittedly the complainant obtained policy bearing No.654247429 from the opposite parties by paying premium of Rs.25,000/-. The bond matured on 31-07-2011. The complainant submitted the claim to the opposite parties for payment of the matured amount. It is also admitted that an endorsement was made by the opposite parties on 22-09-2011 requesting time for payment of the amount. As the opposite parties did not pay the amount in time the complainant filed the present complaint. Admittedly during the pendency of the complainant, the opposite parties issued cheque in favour of the complainant for Rs.35,692/-. The same was encashed by the complainant on 29-12-2011. Ex.B2 is the discharge voucher dated 14-12-2011. It is submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the complainant that as the amount was paid subsequent to the filing of the complainant he is entitled to cost. As seen from Ex.B1 it is very clear that the maturity value under the bond is Rs.34,659.26 Ps. As the said amount was not paid in time the opposite parties also paid penal interest of Rs.1,033/-. Merely because there was some delay in paying amount it cannot be said that there was deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties. The opposite parties paid the matured amount along with penal interest. Therefore it cannot be said that there was deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties. The complainant is not entitled to cost and further interest.
8. In the result the complaint is dismissed without costs.
Dictated to the stenographer, transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced by us in the open bench on this the 7th day of May, 2012.
Sd/- Sd/-
MALE MEMBER PRESIDENT
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
Witnesses Examined
For the complainant : Nil For the opposite parties : Nil
List of exhibits marked for the complainant:-
Ex.A1 Status Report of Policy bearing No.65427429 along with
endorsement of opposite party dated 22-09-2011.
List of exhibits marked for the opposite parties:-
Ex.B1 Photo copy of Payment Voucher
No.M/20112012/001894 for Rs.35,692/-
dated 14-12-2011.
Ex.B2 Photo copy of Discharge of Matured policy
dated 14-12-2011.
Sd/- Sd/-
MALE MEMBER PRESIDENT
// Certified free copy communicated under Rule 4 (10) of the
A.P.S.C.D.R.C. Rules, 1987//
Copy to:-
Complainant and Opposite parties :
Copy was made ready on :
Copy was dispatched on :
