DATE OF FILING                    :     27-11-2013.

DATE OF S/R                            :      20-01-2014.

DATE OF FINAL ORDER      :     31-10-2014.  

Karna  Dhar Hazra,

son of late Janardhan Hazra,

residing at Village – Salap, School Bat Tala, Barabagan,

P.S. Domjur, District –Howrah.---------------------------------------------  COMPLAINANT.

-          Versus   -

Life Insurance Corporation of India,

Domjur Branch, P.S. Domjur, District – Howrah,

PIN – 711 405. ----------------------------------------------------------------OPPOSITE PARTY.

                                                P   R    E     S    E    N     T

President     :     Shri T.K. Bhattacharya, M.A. LL.B. WBHJS.

Member      :      Shri P.K. Chatterjee.

Member       :     Smt. Jhumki Saha.

                                                 F  I   N   A    L       O   R   D    E     R

1.                  Complainant, Karna Dhar Hazra,  by filing a petition U/S 12 of the C .P. Act,

1986 ( as amended up to date ) has prayed for a direction to be given upon the o.p. to issue the original Advance Premium Receipt dated 22-11-2011 for an amount of Rs. 52,803/- in favour of the complainant or to return said  amount with interest up to date, to pay  Rs. 2,00,000/- as cost and compensation along  with other relief or reliefs as the  Forum may deem fit and proper. 

2.                  Brief facts of the case is that complainant purchased an  insurance policies on

22-11-2011  on payment of  Rs. 1,00,000/-  through its agent, one  Dulal  Chandra Paul, since deceased, ( Agency code no. 0061143B )  for which O.P. issued policy  being no. 496389036 along with First Premium Receipt for an amount of Rs. 47,197/-. The said agent also handed over another receipt of advance premium receipt of Rs. 52,803/- being Sl. NO. A-6651 for the said policy vide Annexure two receipts and policy documents.   Suddenly on 26-03-2012, the said agent died. So, the complainant went to O.P.’s office to enquire about his policy.  There he met Sr. Branch Manager, who told him that the Advance Premium Receipt  dated 22-11-2011 given by the said agent was  not genuine and there is no official record of such deposit being Rs.52,803/-.  Hearing such things from O.P.’s office on 09-05-2012 complainant sent a letter to O.P. and on 14-05-2012  vide Annexure he applied before  C.R.M., Howrah, Sr. D .M. and Z .M., Eastern  Zone as well as Ombudsman for recovery of such amount. But till the filing of this case, there was no fruitful action taken on behalf of O.P. Being frustrated and finding no other alternative, he filed this instant case praying for the aforesaid relief.

3.                  Notice was served. O.p. appeared and filed written version. Accordingly, case

heard on contest.

4.                  Upon pleadings of both parties two points arose for determination :

i)          Is there any deficiency in service on the part of the O.P.  ?

ii)                  Whether the complainant is  entitled to get any relief as prayed for ? 

DECISION  WITH   REASONS      :

5.                  Both the points are  taken up together for consideration.            We have carefully

gone  through the written version filed by the o.ps. along with the annexures and notes its contents. It is the specific plea of the O.P. that they have never received any amount of Rs. 52,803/- as advance premium for the policy in question from the complainant.   Further it is also stated by O.P. that Advance Premium Receipt  dated 22-11-2011 is not at all a  genuine one. Complainant only paid Rs. 47,197/- for which they issued the policy document showing the acknowledgment of that amount the Advance Premium Receipt of Rs. 52,803/- is a forged document. It might  have been manufactured either by the said Dulal Chandra Paul  or by the complainant himself to make some wrongful gain for which o.p. should not be held liable. And on this ground the instant petition to be dismissed.  The o.p. has also annexed the order  dated 16-12-1993 passed by the Hon’ble National Commission in First Appeal No. 280 of 1992. We have carefully gone through the said order with full regard and respect. But we take a pause here. O.p. has not denied   and disputed that  Dulal  Chandra Paul, since deceased, was their agent who was working on behalf of the o.p. It is the agent from whom the public are made aware of the products of the organization like o.p. As a common man, everybody trusts the agent of the insurance company while purchasing a policy. So for each and every wrong deed, the organization like o.p. cannot shrug off the due responsibility towards the policy holders. O.ps. should have been more careful and vigilant about their agents when they have authorized those agents to collect money from the people on their behalf. So definitely o.ps. are vicariously liable for all misdeeds done by its agents.     But we are surprised enough to see that although O.P. had full knowledge of fake receipt  issued by said Dulal Chandra Paul, since deceased.  Complainant went to O.P.’s office with the receipt given by the said agent  Dulal  Chandra Paul, since deceased, why they did not lodge any  F.I.R. with the local P.S ?  At least no such document has been filed by O.P. in this case. It is the agent who appears before the common people and makes them understand the utility and usefulness of purchasing an insurance policy. Certainly, people are to believe the agents and act on their assurances. How the common people would learn to verify a money receipt about its genuinety when it is bearing the logo of the O.P. itself. Moreover, it is the stated principle of law that it is he to prove who asserts. So, for the amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- which was paid in cash by the complainant, the entire liability vests upon O.P. as on behalf of O.P., its agents did all these.  And the complainant has been praying before O.P. for proper redressal since 14-05-2012.  It is not possible for the common people to understand which money receipt is genuine and which is not. O.P. should have been more careful as it is dealing in public money. And when it is proved that due to O.P.’s negligence, complainant is going to suffer, O.P. has nothing to do but to make good to all monetary loss suffered by the complainant. Accordingly the case  succeeds on merit. 

      Points under consideration are accordingly decided.

      In the result, the complaint succeeds.

      Hence,

                                    O     R     D      E      R      E        D

      That the C. C. Case No. 403 of 2013 ( HDF 403 of 2013 )  be  allowed on contest with  costs  against  the O.Ps. 

      That the  O.p. is directed to return  Rs. 52,803/-  to the complainant within one month from this order i.d., it shall carry an interest  @ 10% p.a. till actual realization. 

      No order as to compensation.

      The o.p. is further directed to pay Rs. 2,000/- as litigation costs to the complainant within one month from this order i.e. it shall carry an interest @ 10% p.a. till actual realization.  

      The complainant is at liberty to put the decree into execution after expiry of the appeal period.

      Supply the copies of the order to the parties, as per rule.            

DICTATED  &    CORRECTED

BY   ME.  

      (  Jhumki Saha  )                                                                  

  Member, C.D.R.F.,Howrah.