DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II

U.T. CHANDIGARH

C.L. Chaudhary, aged 58 years, s/o late Sh. Ram Dass r/o House No.616, Sector 36B, Chandigarh.

                                                                   ---Complainant.

Versus

Life Insurance Corporation of India, Unit-I Branch (163), Jeevan Deep Building, Sector 17-B, Chandigarh through Branch Manager.

---Opposite Party

BEFORE:  SHRI LAKSHMAN SHARMA                 PRESIDENT

                   SMT. MADHU MUTNEJA                       MEMBER

                   SHRI JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU       MEMBER

Argued by: Complainant in person

                   Sh. B.J. Singh, Adv. for the OP.

PER LAKSHMAN SHARMA, PRESIDENT

1.                           Sh. C.L. Chaudhary has filed this complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the Act only) praying for the following relief :

i)                   to pay Rs.37,700/- immediately without any further delay.

ii)                To pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation for mental harassment and torture.

iii)              To pay Rs.11,000/- as costs of the present complaint.

2.                           The case of the complainant, in brief, is that on 28.2.1992 he purchased Money Back Policy No.160492733 from the opposite party for sum assured of Rs.25,000/-.  The policy term was 20 years and it was to mature on 28.2.2012.   It is averred by the complainant that he paid the last premium vide receipt dated 7.3.2011.  According to the complainant, as the policy was to mature for payment on 28.2.2012, therefore, the opposite party asked him to fill in the requisite pre-receipt form, duly signed, and to submit the same with the original policy bond. The complainant submitted the original policy bond with requisite form in the first week of February 2012.  However, when the complainant did not receive the maturity amount till the last week of February, he made personal enquiries and got the status report that cheque No.0165453 dated 10.2.2012 for Rs.37,700/- was prepared by the opposite party but it was sent at some different address.

                   According to the complainant, the failure on the part of the opposite party to deliver the cheque of Rs.37,700/- amounts to deficiency in service.  Hence this complaint.

3.                           In its written statement the opposite party admitted the facts with regard to the issuance of the policy.  It has been submitted that as the cheque dated 7.3.2011 towards the last premium due on 28.2.2011 was dishonoured, therefore, the complainant made the payment in cash on 18.3.2011.  It has also been admitted that on maturity of the policy, a cheque was prepared on 10.2.2012 but it has been pleaded that it was sent at the address given in the status report.  It has been averred that when this cheque was received back undelivered, verification of office record was done and the cheque was sent at the present address of the complainant through registered post on 29.3.2012.  It has been pleaded that due to an inadvertent clerical error, the payment was delayed by about a month.  In these circumstances prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made.

4.                           We have heard the complainant in person, learned counsel for the opposite party and have gone through the documents on record.

5.                           Admittedly, the policy in question was to mature on 28.2.2012.  According to the complainant himself, the cheque for Rs.37,700/- was prepared by the opposite party on 10.2.2012 but it was sent at some different address of Sector 52, Village Kajheri, UT, Chandigarh.  On the other hand, according to the opposite party, the cheque in question was sent at the address given in the status report.  It has been contended by the ld. Counsel for the opposite party that immediately after the cheque was received undelivered, verification of the office record was done and the cheque was sent at the present address of the complainant. The cheque was sent at the wrong address due to inadvertence. To our mind, bonafide mistake on the part of the opposite party in sending the cheque at a wrong address cannot be said to be deficiency in service, particularly when the cheque was sent at the correct address, at its own, after the same was returned to it.  Thus, the opposite party cannot be held to be deficient in rendering service in this respect. 

6.                           At the time of arguments it has been fairly conceded by the complainant that the cheque in question has been received by him. 

7.                           In view of the above discussion, we are of the opinion that there is no merit in this complaint and the same is dismissed, with no order as to costs.

8.                           Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room.

Announced

07.08.2012.

Sd/-

(LAKSHMAN SHARMA)

PRESIDENT

Sd/-

 (MADHU MUTNEJA)

MEMBER

Sd/-

(JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU)

MEMBER