| ORDER | DATE OF FILING : 27-11-2013. DATE OF S/R : 20-01-2014. DATE OF FINAL ORDER : 17-11-2014. Sk. Mijanur, residing at Village – Danshpara, P.O. Salap, 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 Sk. Mijanur,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 Receipts dated 28-12-2011 for an amount of Rs. 24,000/- in favour of the complainant or to return said amount with interest up to date, to pay 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 aninsurance policy on 28-12-2011 on payment of Rs. 50,000/- through its agent, one Dulal Chandra Paul, since deceased, ( Agency code no. 0061143B ) for which O.P. issued policy being no. 496393867. The said agent also handed over the first premium receipt for Rs. 26,000/- and Advance Premium Receipt for an amount of Rs. 24,000/- with respect to the policy no. 496393867. Suddenly on 26-03-2012, the said agent died. So, the complainant went to O.P.s office on 30-04-2012 to enquire about his policy. There he met Sr. Branch Manager, who told him that the First Premium Receipt dated 28-12-2011 for Rs. 26,000/- given by the said agent was genuine but the Advance Premium Receipt dated 28-12-2011 of Rs. 24,000/- was not a genuine one and there is no official record of such deposit being Rs.24,000/-. Only there is the record of Rs. 26,000/- at the office of the o.ps. Hearing such things from O.P.s office, on 11-05-2012 complainant sent a letter to O.P. and subsequently applied before the Ombudsman for recovery of the said amount being Rs. 24,000/- but till date no fruitful result came out till the filing of this case. Being frustrated and finding no other alternative, he filed this instant case praying for the aforesaid relief. Notice was served. O.p. appeared and filed written version. Accordingly, case heard on contest. Upon pleadings of both parties two points arose for determination : Is there any deficiency in service on the part of the O.P. Whether the complainant is entitled to get any relief as prayed for DECISION WITH REASONS 5 Both the points aretaken up together for consideration. We have carefullygone through the written version filed by the o.ps. along with the annexures and noted its contents. It is the specific plea of the O.P. that they have never received any amount of Rs. 24,000/- as Advance Premium Receipt for the policy in question from the complainant. Further it is also stated by O.P. that Advance Premium Receipt dated 28-12-2011 for Rs. 24,000/- is not at all a genuine one. Complainant only paid Rs.26,000/- for which they issued the policy document showing the acknowledgment of that amount. And the Advance Premium Receipt of Rs. 24,000/- is a forged document. It might have been manufactured either by the said Dulal Chandra Paul, since deceased, or by the complainant himself to make some wrongful gain for which o.p. should not be held liable. Further it is also stated by the o.ps. in written version at para 8 that the policy in question has been surrendered on 31-12-2013 and an amount of Rs. 53,007/- was paid with respect to the payment of Rs. 26,000/- by the complainant relating to the policy in question vide Annexure V dated 18-02-2014 of the written version. Complainant has not denied this fact. And on this ground the instant petition is liable 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. for their gain. It is the agent from whom the public are made aware of the products of the organization like o.p.s. 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 their 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. O.p. has also filed the copy of the G.D. Entry dated 16-04-2014. But we are surprised enough to see that although O.P. had full knowledge of fake receipt issued by said Dulal Chandra Paul, since 26-03-2012 and further on 30-04-2012, police diary has been made only on 16-04-2014. Complainant went to O.P s office on 30-04-2012 with the fake receipt dated 28-12-2011 immediately after 26-03-2012 i.e., after the demise of said Dulal Chandra Paul. And o.p. has also accepted in their police dairy dated 16-04-2014 that after the death of Dulal Chandra Paul, several policy holders, who had deposited their LIC premium at the deceased agent s Premium Point at Salap, came to enquire about the status of their policies at o.p. s office and on verification it was found that a number of premium receipts were fake. Still o.p. took more than two years to file police dairy. Does it not show their severe negligence towards their consumers 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. 24,000/- which was paid by the complainant, the entire liability vests upon O.P. as on behalf of O.P., its agent did all these. And the complainant has been praying before O.P. for proper redressal since April, 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 financially, 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. 404 of 2013 ( HDF 404 of 2013 ) be allowed on contest with costs against the O.Ps. That the O.p. is directed to return Rs. 24,000/- to the complainant within one month from this order i.d., it shall carry an interest 10 p.a. till actual realization and cancel the policy in question. The o.p. is further directed to pay Rs. 2,000/- litigation costs to the complainant within one month from this order i.e. it shall carry an interest 10 p.a. till actual realization. No order as to compensation. 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 and CORRECTED BY ME. ( Jhumki Saha ) Member, C.D.R.F.,Howrah.
| |
