OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KAMRUP,GUWAHATI
C.C. 59/11
Present:-
1)Md.Sahadat Hussain, A.J.S. - President
2)Smti Archana Deka Lahkar - Member
Akmal Hussain, Rtd.Commandant - Complainant
S/O- Late Md.Abur Razak
House No.2, Kalaguru Path,
Bye-lane No.-8, Sarumotoria
Dr.Zakir Hussain Path
Guwahati-36, Assam
-vs-
1) Life Insurance Corporation of India, - Opp.parties
Established by the Life Insurance Corporation
Act,1956
2) The Branch Manager,
Life Insurance Corporation of India
G.B.O.3,Guwahati
Appearance : -
Ld. advocate for the complainant -Mr.Nani Gopal Kundu
Marina Begum.
Miss L.Wajeeda
Ld. advocate for the opp.parties - Sri Girish Ch.Deka
Sri Ramendra Nath Dev Sarma
Date of argument- 1.2.2018
Date of judgment- 16.2.2018
JUDGMENT
This is a proceeding u/s 12 of Consumer Protection Act,1986.
1) The complaint filed by Md.Akmal Hussain against Life Insurance Corporation of India and the Branch Manager, LIC of India, GBO,3 , Guwahati was admitted on 1.12.11 and notices were served upon the opp.parties who also filed joint written statement on 19.7.13. The complainant filed his evidence on affidavit on 19.2.14 and he was cross examined by the counsel of the opp.party side. Thereafter, the opp.party side filed the evidence of Ms. Manna Bhattacharjya in affidavit on 19.5.16 and she was cross examined by the complainant side’s learned counsel. After closing of hearing of evidence Ld.advocate Mr.Nonigopal Kundu filed written argument for the complainant and Ld. advocate Mr. Ramendra Nath Dev Sarma for the opp. parties . Thereafter on 1.2.18 we heard oral argument of Ld.advocate Mr.Nani Gopal Kundu for the complainant and of Ld.advocate Mr. Ramendra Nath Dev Sarma for the opp.parties . And today we dliver our judgment which is as below.
2) The complainant’s case in brief is that he had done a policy vide No. 481536547 with Life Insurance Corporation of India through G.B.O. III Guwahati on 23.2.1997 and he had paid the premiums regularly and the last date of payment of premium was 23.8.2005 and the date of annuity was 23.2.2006 and exactly after one month I.e. on 23.3.2006 the first pension was paid to him by the company. In the Jivan Suraksha Policy with terminal bonus with life cover policy document it has been clearly mentioned that the amount of monthly fees payable to him after maturity of the policy would be Rs. 908/- (Rupees none hundred eight)only , but he was been paid pension @ 600/- only after maturity of the said policy (23.2.2006) instead of Rs.908/- as per contract made at the time of commencement of policy on 22.2.1997. He filed application Life Insurance Corporation of India through G.B.O. III Guwahati vide application No. 17.3.2006 informing them that he was being paid Rs.600/- (Rupees six hundred) only as a pension per month which was Rs.308/- less and he also filed one application to the Senior Divisional Manager No. 3 G.S.2 with application dtd.7.6.2006 and requested him to look into the matter and to remit the balance amount of Rs.308/-.He also has submitted reminder dtd. 1.9.2006 to the 3.G.S.II , Senior Divisional Manager and then the Manager C.R. vide letter dtd.15.9.2006 inform him that they had inform the branch manager to examine his case, but have not receive communication from them , he approach General Manager of Life Insurance Corporation of India vide application No. 11.5.2007 and also approached Deputy Secretary of Life Insurance Corporation of India vide application No. 11.5.2007 and requested them to correct the said anomalies. That reference to his application dtd. 15.6.2007,the Asstt.Secretary the insurance Ombudsmen by his letter dtd. 18.6.2007 intimated him to submit the documents and the manager, C.R.JS Cell) vide his letter dtd. 18.6.2007 stated that pension amount of Rs.908/- was erroneously printed in the Policy Bond of Rs.600/- and the branch manager also vide his letter dtd. 30.7.2007 stated that the same printing in the policy bond was a mistake. Then he again vide application dtd.28.9.2007 approach the branch manager to consider his case, but found no positive result. He is entitled to draw pension @ Rs.908/- instead of Rs.600/- on the basis of said policy and accordingly he is entitled to get back arrear amount of Rs.20,636/- along with interest @ 15% and Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation for loss and damage suffered by him along with cost of proceeding.
3) The plea of the opp.parties is that the complaint is barred by law of limitation . The complaint has no locus standi as well as cause of action to file the complaint. The complainant misconceive the matter. The instant complaint was not made within two years from the date of cause of action for which the complaint is liable to be dismiss . On receipt of application dtd. 1.9.2006 from the complainant, they enquired the matter and Opp.Party No.1 vide letter dtd. 18.6.2007 as well as Opp.Party No.2 vide letter dtd.30.7.07 inform the complainant that the pension amount @ Rs.908/- in the policy was shown due to some typographical error and actually that should be @ Rs.600/- as per calculation and accordingly they have been paying pension fixing @ 600/- per month and as such there is no mistake on their part. Hence, the complainant is not entitled to get relief as prayed and the complaint is liable to be dismissed.
4) The pleading of the opp.parties in brief, is that there is no cause of action for filing the complaint; the complaint is barred by limitation . The statements of the complainant do not disclose any cause of action’ the complaint filed is false and vexatious. As the complaint was not made within two years from the date of cause of action, it is liable to be dismiss in limine. A receipt of the letter dtd.1.9.2006 they enquired the matter and finding was communicated to the complainant by Opp.Party No.1 vide letter dtd. 18.6.2007 as well as by Opp.Party No.2 vide letter dtd. 30.7.2007 that the pension amount at the rate of Rs.908/- in the policy was shown out to some typographical error, actually that should have been Rs.600/- as per calculation and accordingly they have been paying him pension @ Rs.600/- per month and hence they are not liable to pay the complainant, the pension @ Rs.908/- and as such there is no fault on their part and in result complaint is liable to be dismissed .
5) We have perused the pleading as well as evidence of both the parties and found that both sides’ admit that the complainant Mr.Akmal Hussain had purchased policy No. 482536547 from the opp.party (Life Insurance Corporation of India), which is commenced from 23.2.1997 and the last date of payment of premium was 23.8.2005 and the complainant duly paid the premiums and the said policy it is subsequently written that the rate of monthly pension is Rs.908/- and nowhere in the policy it is written that the monthly pension would be Rs.600/- per month and that annuity was vested on 23.2.2006 and opp.parties have been paying the pension to the complainant @ Rs.600/- till date instead of Rs.908/-.
6) From the evidence of the complainant it appears to us that the complainant that he filed application to Branch Manager of Life Insurance Corporation of India,G.B.O.III, Guwahati, on 17.3.2006 informing the Branch Manager that the policy has become matured and to pay the first installment and accordingly complainant received a cheque of Rs.600/- which was Rs.300/- less than the amount shown in the policy and then he approached the 3 GS II, Senior Divisional Manager, Division Office vide application dtd. 7.6.2006 requesting him to look into the matter and remit the balance amount of Rs.308/- This statement of the complainant is supported by Ex.2, the letter issued to Branch Manager Life Insurance Corporation of India . GBO III, Guwahati, by him requesting him to issue the cheque of pension, vide Ex.3 – the letter written to the 3 GS II Senior Divisional Manager, Division Office, Guwahati , dtd. 7.6.2006 requesting him to look into the matter of paying him pension @ Rs.600/- per month and Ex.4 the letter written to 3 GS II Senior Divisional Manager, Division Office, Guwahati , dtd. 1.9.2006 through which he requested the Senior Divisional Manager to remit Rs.308/- which was lessened in the monthly pension and Ex.5 the letter written by him to General Manager Life Insurance Corporation of India , Kolkata, requesting him to see the manager giving him pension @ Rs.600/- instead of Rs.908/- and Ex.6 which is the letter written by him to the Deputy Secretary Office of the Life Insurance Corporation of India, Ombudsmen on that matte. Thus , it is establish that after receiving first pension @ 600/- per month which was paid to him on 23.3.2006, but not paid him the coveted amount , he requested the concerned authorities of Life Insurance Corporation of India to look into the matter and to pay him pension @ Rs.908/- instead of Rs.600/- per month.
7) The complainant further state that he approached insurance Ombudsmen , but the opp.parties vide letter dtd.18.6.07 and 30.7.07 (Ex.7 & 8) inform him that the Ombudsmen look into the matter as a mediator if he is agreeable to it. From the record it is found that the order of the Ombudsmen is filed neither by the complainant nor by the opp.parties , but it is factually true that the complainant has not been paid pension @Rs.908/-.
8) The plea of the opp.party is that the policy which is Jiban Suraksha policy is a policy which is for paying Rs.600/- per month to the complainant as monthly pension at a maturity of the policy, but mistakenly it was written in the policy with the monthly pension would be @Rs.908/- and that is a bonafide error on their part. Now , the question is that whether , actually it is a error in printing ? The opp.party side has filed no other documents to show that they had erroneously printed Rs.908/- in the policy as monthly pension. We have perused the said policy which is Ex.1 and found that it is subsequently written in the column of amount of monthly pension with the rate of pension is Rs.908/- and in nowhere it is written the rate of pension is Rs.600/- per month. It is also found that during period of paying the premium till maturity of the policy, the opp.party never informed the complainant that the rate of interest as Rs.908/- is wrongly quoted and the column of the monthly pension, but actually it should have been @ Rs.600/- per month , nor they have taken step to rectify the alleged error. Thus, we are of opinion that the printing of Rs.908/- in the monthly pension column of Ex.1 ( the policy) is not a erroneous printing. But the actual coveted rate and therefore, the opp.parties are liable to pay the complainant the pension @ Rs.908/-.
9) The second plea of the opp.aprty is that the complainant filed the complaint before this forum beyond two years from the date of cause of action and that is why the complaint is barred by limitation as per section 24)A) of Consumer Protection Act,1986. After perusing the crux of the entire case, we have found that it is not a case of one time payment, it is a case of continuous payment which was running till date and it will also run in future until death of the complainant. So, paying compensation @Rs.600/- per month to the complainant, as per out opinion is a continuous fault on the part of the opp.parties, which causes raises of cause of action in each month, present and
future and therefore, the complaint is not barred by limitation as envisaged by the provision of sec.24 (A) of Consumer Protection Act,1986 and the complaint filed by the complainant on 25.11.11 is not at all barred by limitation.
10) Summing up above discussion we hold that the opp.parties are liable to pay monthly pension to the complainant on the basis of said policy @ 908/-per month from 23.3.2006 and they are liable to pay arrear amount of Rs.43,890/- @ 12% per annum from the date of filing of the complaint (25.11.11.)
11) It is also found that by not paying the compensation to the complainant by the opp.party under the coveted rate, caused harassed to the complainant and therefore, they are liable to pay compensation at least Rs.30,000/-. Thirdly, for no fault of the complainant he has to bear the cost in prosecuting the opp.parties before this forum and therefore, the opp.parties are liable to pay atleast Rs.10,000/- as cost of the proceeding.
12) Closing our discussion as above we hold that the complaint has merit .Hence the complaint against opp.parties is allowed on contest and the opp.parties are directed to pay monthly pension to the complainant @908/- per month from this day as per policy and also to pay him the arrear amount which is Rs.43,890/- with interest @ 12% per annum from 25.11.11 and also to pay Rs.30,000/- as compensation for causing harassment to him along with Rs.10,000/- as cost of proceeding, to which, opp.parties are jointly and severally liable. They are directed to pay the awarded amount excluding future pension within 45days, in default of which other amounts shall also carry interest @ 12% per annum.
Given under our hands and seals of this forum on this day 16th Feb,2018.
Free copies of judgment be delivered to the parties.
(Smt A.D.Lahkar) (Md.S.Hussain)
Member President
