PER:

Charanjit Singh, President;

1        The present complaint has been received from the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Amritsar by the order of the Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Punjab, Chandigarh for its disposal.

2        The complainant has filed the present complaint by invoking the provisions of Consumer Protection Act under Section 11 and 12 against the opposite parties on the allegations that the complainant is presently posted as Assistant Engineer in the office of the O.P.No.3 previously when the complainant was posted as J.E. in office of the O.P. No.3 he purchased two LIC Policies bearing Nos. 470876218 and 472216451 and the premium of the said policies are Rs. 1358/- P.M and Rs.737/- per month respectively which were deducted from the salary of the complainant and were duly credited in the account of the said policies with the LIC, Hence, the complainant is the consumer of the said LIC Policies. Thereafter the complainant was transferred from the office of the OP No.3 to the office of the OP No.4 and accordingly the premium of both the policies were deducted from the salary of the complainant and the same were transferred to the OP No.1 and the policy bearing No.470876218 which was commenced on 28.11.2000 for fifteen years was matured on 28.11.2015 and in the meanwhile the complainant was also transferred to the office of the OP No.6. After the maturity of policy No.  470876218 during the stint of service of the complainant in the office of the O.P. No.4, the complainant approached the OPs No.1 and 2 who disclosed that the premium of the said policy for 12/2014, 3/2013, to 6/2013, 2/2012, 6/2014 to 10/2014, 9/2011, 11/2011, 1/2009, 7/2009, 8/2009, 10/2009 to 12/2009, 8/2008 to 12/2008, 6/2007 to 12/2007, 9/2006 and 10/2006 have not been deposited in this office and accordingly the complainant approached the OP No.3 who in turn wrote a letter to the O.P. No.1 & 2 and it was stated in the said letter that the amount of premium of both the policies of the bills showing the deduction of premium from the salary of the complainant and a copy thereof was also sent to the complainant. Thereafter, the complainant approached the OP No.2 by writing a letter which was duly diarized vide No.515 dated 17.05.2016 and alongwith the said letter the complainant also sent vouchers and bill of deduction from the salary of the complainant vide letter No.565 dated 22.03.2016 of the office of OP No.3 and vide letter No.758 dated 04.03.2016 of the office of OP No.6 and the complainant requested the O.P No.1 and 2 to rectify the mistake as stated above and further requested to make payment covered by the policy No.470876218 which was matured on 28.11.2015 but the O.P No.1 & 2 have neither made the payment covered by the said policy nor replied the letter of O.P No.1 & 2 and are bent upon to harass the complainant are reluctant to make the payment of the amount covered by the said policy.  The O.P No.4 has written a letter bearing No.556 dt. 07.04.2015 to the Treasury office , Batala wherein he has stated that LIC premium towards policies of the complainant i.e. Rs. 1358/- P.M. towards policy No.470876218 and Rs. 737/- P.M. towards policy No.472216451 were deducted from the salary of the complainant for the month 03/2013 and the treasury office, Batala made a report which was sent to the Treasury office, Gurdaspur Vide No.12 dt 10.04.2015 to the effect that as per record of this bill No.3 dt. 27.05.2013 is duly recovered at TV No.135 dated 14.06.2013 and deduction of LIC amount of Rs. 6759/- has been made and accordingly LIC premium be adjusted but nothing has been done. The complainant has made futile visits to the offices of the opposite parties for his genuine and legitimate claim but the opposite parties did not make any heed towards the genuine request of the complainant. Finding no way out the complainant has sent a legal notice dated 24.08.2016 to the opposite party No.1 to 6 vide registered post which was dispatched on the even date and the O.P.No.6 has sent reply to the said legal notice vide memo No. PRD/A/20164138 dt.13.12.2006 whereby the O.P.No.6 admitted that the amount was deducted from the salary of the complainant  and in reply to the said legal notice sent by the O.P.No.5 to the counsel of the complainant vide Memo No.2991 dt.26.09.2016 he has also admitted the deduction from the salary of the complainant and the same was credited with the LIC but the OP No.1 & 2 have intentionally and willfully denied the collection of premium received from the employer of the complainant obviously in order to avoid the payment of the amount covered by the policy No.470876218 which has already matured on 28.11.2015. The complainant has discharged his part of the obligation enjoined in his capacity as consumer by way of making regular payment of premium towards Insurance Policy No.470876218, the O.P.No.1 & 2 are also under obligation and are duty bound to make payment of the amount covered by LIC Policy No.470876218 to the complainant. The complainant agitated the matter with the O.Ps No.1 & 2 and requested them to make the payment of the policy amount covered by policy No.470876218 but the O.Ps No.1 to 9 did not pay heed to the genuine requests of the complainant. The complainant pays as under:-

(i)     The opposite parties No. 1 and 2 may kindly be directed to make the payment of the amount covered by policy No. 470876218 to the complainant which had already matured on 28.11.2015 alongwith with all ancillary benefits and interest @ 18% p.a. w.e.f. 28.11.2015 onwards till the realsiation thereof.

(ii)    The opposite parties No. 1 to 9 be also directed to pay a sum of Rs. 2 Lacs on account of negligence and deficiency in service, harassment as well as inconvenience to the complainant for not making  the payment of the policy amount covered by policy No. 470876218.

(iii)   Costs of the proceedings may also be awarded to the complainant.

3        After formal admission of the complaint, notice was issued to Opposite Parties and opposite party No. 1 and 2 appeared through counsel and filed written version and contested the complaint by interalia pleadings that the present complaint is not legally maintainable against opposite parties No. 1, 2 in the eyes of law and as such liable to be summarily dismissed. The complainant has filed the baseless, frivolous and imaginary claim with ulterior motives.  The complainant has no cause of action to file the present complaint against the opposite parties No. 1, 2.   It is correct to the extent that the complainant had obtained two Insurance policies from the opposite parties No. 1, 2 i.e. policy bearing number 470876218 with the date of commencement as 28.11.2000 having the sum assured Rs 2,00,000/ pertains to the branch office, Gurdaspur and policy bearing number 472216451 which was issued on 13.2.2003 having the sum assured Rs 1,00,00,000/ pertains to the branch office unit I Amritsar.  Policy bearing number 470876218 which was commenced on 28.11.2000 for 15 years was matured on 28.11.2015. Policy bearing number 470876218 pertains to the branch office Gurdaspur i.e. opposite party No. 1. The complainant had not submitted requisite documents with the opposite party No. 1 for the admissibility of the maturity claim and moreover opposite party No 1 has not received any payment regarding the gaps of 09.2011, 03.2013, 06.2013, 07.2013, 08.2013, 09.2013, 10.2013, 11.2013, 12.2013, 01.2014, 02.2014, 03.2014, 04.2014, 06.2014, 07.2014, 08.2014, 09.2014,10.2014, 12.2014 totaling 19 gaps from the complainant. The present complaint has been filed by the complainant against the opposite parties No. 1 and 2 just to humiliate them of which he has no right or interest to do so.  The complainant had not submitted the requisite documents with the opposite party No. 1 for the admissibility of the maturity claim and moreover opposite party No. 1 has not received any payment regarding certain gaps as mentioned above i.e total 19 gaps from the complainant. The opposite parties No. 1 and 2 have denied the other contents of the complainant and prayed for dismissal of the same.

4        The opposite party No. 4 appeared and filed written version by interalia pleadings that the instant complaint is not maintainable since the earlier complaint filed by the complainant was withdrawn. The complainant has intentionally not stated the true and correct facts about the previously filed consumer complaint. The complainant has not stated the particulars of the earlier complaint and has asserted the incomplete facts for withdrawal of earlier consumer case.  The allegations made in the complaint are vague and indefinite. It does not state clearly as to when the cause of action as alleged actually arose. The present complaint is nothing but an abuse of law and the procedure of this Commission. The Present complaint is just filed to harass the Opposite Party No.4 as the Opposite Party No.4 has been wrongly and malafidely involved in the complaint and as such no case is made out against Opposite Party No.4. The Complainant has not come before this commission with clean hands and has suppressed and concealed material facts from this commission.  The Complainant has filed the instant complaint just to extort money and to unlawfully gain money from Opposite Party No. 4. The complainant has purchased two LIC policies. The mistake as alleged by the complainant arose in the month that initial complainant and year of September, 2006 and as such the complainant allegedly approached O.P.No.3 which makes it very clear that the initial mistake as alleged was committed by O.P.No.3. The opposite party No. 4 wrote a letter bearing No.556 dated 07.04.2015 to the Treasury Officer, Batala, wherein it was stated that LIC premium towards policies of the complainant were deducted from the salary of the complainant for the month of 03.2013. The opposite party No. 4 has made all the best possible efforts to resolve the issue including that of writing the letter to Treasury office, Batala and to Chief Manager, LIC office, Gurdaspur. No legal notice has ever been served on the opposite party No 4. The opposite party No. 4 has made all the best possible efforts to resolve the issue including that of writing the letter to Treasury Office, Batala and to Chief Manager, LIC office, Gurdaspur. The complainant himself has claimed the compensation to the tune of Rs.2 lacs which prima facie shows that the complainant just wants to extort money from all the opposite parties. The initial typographical mistake was committed by O.P.No.3 in the month and year of September, 2006, when the complainant allegedly worked in the office of O.P.No.3.  The complainant was posted in the office of O.P.No.4 for the period starting from 08.2012 to 04.2013. The Complainant has intentionally not stated the true and correct facts about the previously filed consumer complaint. The complainant has not stated the particulars of the earlier complaint and has asserted the incomplete facts for withdrawal of earlier consumer case. The opposite party No. 4 has denied the other contents of the complaint and prayed for dismissal of the same. 

5        The opposite party No. 5 appeared and filed written version by interalia pleadings that the present complaint is not legally maintainable as the same is an abuse of process of the court of law and this commission has no jurisdiction to entertain the present complaint. That the complainant is not a "Consumer" qua OP No. 5 as defined in Consumer protection Act 1986.  This office had received Legal notice from the complainant on dated 24.08.2016 which had been duly replied vide this office letter No. 2991 dated 26.09.2016 in which it was admitted that the deduction of installment of policy had been made from Complainant salary bill and recovery schedule had been sent to District Treasury office, Tarn Taran with salary bills. The complainant has made this office as party at Sr. No.5 of the complaint on account of missing of 4 month LIC deduction from 06/2013 to 09/2013 and the proof of deduction of LIC installments from complainant salary had already been provided to the complainant vide this office memo No.2991 dated 26.09.2016. The opposite party No. 5 has denied the other contents of the complaint and prayed for dismissal of the same. 

6        The opposite party No. 6 appeared and filed written version by interalia pleadings that the present complaint is not legally maintainable as the same is not directly pertains to the office of the i.e. OP No.6 undersigned.  As this division deducted all the LIC premiums and sends it to the District Treasury office, Amritsar for proper crediting it to the petitioner’s policy account. Thereafter, it was the responsibility of District Treasury Officer, Amritsar i.e. OP No.9 to further credit the amount to the policy holder i.e. petitioner.  The vouchers of the bills of deduction for LIC premium in respect to this division had already been sent to OP No. 9. Thereafter was the responsibility of OP. No 9 to further credit this amount in petitioner's policy account. This division is nothing to do in making payment.  The amount of premium were deducted by OP no. 6. Thereafter, it was the responsibility of the OP. No. 9 for further crediting it in the petitioner's policy account.  The opposite party No. 6 has denied the other contents of the complaint and prayed for dismissal of the same. 

7        The opposite party No. 8 appeared and filed written version by interalia pleadings that the complaint is not maintainable against the opposite party No. 8. The opposite parties have already been sent to the opposite parties No. 1 vide No. 3281 dated 8.7.2013 out of Rs. 4190640/- to the tune of Rs.6759/ of the D. D. P. O. Fetehgarh Churian. So no amount is lying in office of opposite party No.8.  Treasury office Batala has sent the LIC premium towards policies of the complainant i.e. RS. 1358/-p.m. R.737/- of policy No. 470876218 and472216451. As per scheduled total Rs. 6759/- has been sent to the opposite party No.1 vide letter No 3281 dated 8.7.2013. So nothing any pending amount of the complainant in the office of opposite party No.8.

8        The Opposite party No. 9 appeared and filed written version by interalia pleadings that the complainant inter alia prayed that the O.P. No. 1 and 2 may kindly be directed to make the payment of the amount covered by policy No. 470876218 to the complainant which had already matured on 28.11.2015 alongwith all ancillary benefits and interest @ 18% p.a. w.e.f. 28.11.2015 onwards till the realization thereof. The complainant has not prayed for any relief qua the opposite party No. 9, hence the complaint become infructuous and therefore, may kindly be dismissed. The present complaint is not maintainable against the opposite party No. 9 as the O.P. No. 9 is working only as a paying agency of the State Government and the office of opposite party No. 9 used to make payments viz. Salaries. Wages, pensions, GPF, Leave encashment, Gratuities etc. only against the bills submitted to it by the concerned Drawing & Disbursing Officer. The office of O.P. No. 9 does not make payments of Insurance Policies. The role of the office of answering O.P. No. 9 is only to send money related to LIC in the shape of Treasury Cheque to LIC office for the aggregated amount deducted monthly against LIC BT from the salary bills of different DDOs and nothing else. Hence, there is no role of the O.P. No. 9 in making payment of LIC of the complainant. Moreover, the complainant is not employee of the office of the opposite party No. 9. The office of opposite party No. 9 has no direct concern with the complainant. No notice under section 80 CPC has been given by the complainant to the O.P. No. 9 before filing the present complaint as such the complaint is liable to be dismissed on this score alone as it is mandatory provision. No cause of action has arisen against the opposite party No. 9 to file the present complaint, hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed. The complainant has got no locus standi to file the present complaint against the opposite party No. 9 as he is not entitled for any discretionary relief from this Commission. No alleged payment of LIC is to be made by the office of opposite party No. 9 to the complainant. Moreover, the role of the office of O.P. No. 9 is only to send money of LIC in the shape of Treasury Cheque to LIC office for the aggregated amount deducted monthly against LIC BT from the salary bills of different DDOs and nothing else. Hence, there is no any delay on the part of the opposite party No. 9 in making payment of LIC to the complainant.  No payment is to be made by the office of opposite party No. 9 to the complainant. The opposite party No. 9 has denied the other contents of the complaint and prayed for dismissal of the same.

9        Notices were issued to the opposite party No. 3 and 7 and same were duly served but they opted not to come forward to contest the complaint and consequently, the opposite party No. 3 and 7 were proceeded against ex-parte

10      To prove his case, Ld. counsel for the complainant has tendered n evidence affidavit of complainant Ex. CW1/A alongwith documents Ex. C-1 to C-44 and closed the evidence. Ld. counsel for the opposite parties No.  1 and 2 tendered in evidence affidavit of Rajinder Kumar Ex. OP1,2/1 and closed the evidence. The opposite party No. 4 tendered in evidence affidavit of Gurjit Singh Chauhan Ex. OP4/1 and closed the evidence. The opposite party No. 5 tendered in evidence affidavit of Sh. Jaswant Singh Executive Engineer Panchyati Raj Ex. OP5/1 and closed the evidence, Opposite party No. 6 tendered in evidence affidavit of Er. Sh. Sanjiv Gupta Executive Engineer, Panchyati Raj Ex. OP6/1 and closed the evidence. Ll. Counsel for the opposite party No. 9 tendered in evidence affidavit of Sh. Amman Kumar Maini District Treasury Officer Ex. OP9/1 and closed the evidence.

11      The combined and harmonious reading of documents and pleadings is going to prove that complainant is Assistant Engineer in the office of the O.P.No.3 i.e. Block Development and Panchyat office, Verka and when he was posted as J.E. in office of the O.P. No.3 he purchased two LIC Policies bearing Nos. 470876218 and 472216451 and the premium of the said policies are Rs. 1358/- P.M and Rs.737/- per month respectively which were deducted from the salary of the complainant and were duly credited in the account of the said policies. Thereafter, the complainant was transferred from the office of the OP No.3 to the office of the OP No.4 and accordingly the premium of both the policies were deducted from the salary of the complainant and the same were transferred to the OP No.1 and the policy bearing No.470876218 which was commenced on 28.11.2000 for fifteen years and was matured on 28.11.2015 and in the meanwhile the complainant was also transferred to the office of the OP No.6. After the maturity of policy No.  470876218 during the stint of service of the complainant in the office of the O.P. No.4, the complainant approached the OPs No.1 and 2 who disclosed that the premium of the said policy for 12/2014, 3/2013, to 6/2013, 2/2012, 6/2014 to 10/2014, 9/2011, 11/2011, 1/2009, 7/2009, 8/2009, 10/2009 to 12/2009, 8/2008 to 12/2008, 6/2007 to 12/2007, 9/2006 and 10/2006 have not been deposited in this office and accordingly the complainant approached the OP No.3 who in turn wrote a letter to the O.P. No.1 & 2 and it was stated in the said letter that the amount of premium of both the policies of the bills showing the deduction of premium from the salary of the complainant and a copy thereof was also sent to the complainant. Thereafter, the complainant approached the OP No.2 by writing a letter which was duly diarized vide No.515 dated 17.05.2016 and alongwith the said letter the complainant also sent vouchers and bill of deduction from the salary of the complainant vide letter No.565 dated 22.03.2016 of the office of OP No.3 and vide letter No.758 dated 04.03.2016 of the office of OP No.6 and the complainant requested the O.P No.1 and 2 to rectify the mistake as stated above and further requested to make payment covered by the policy No.470876218 which was matured on 28.11.2015 but the O.P No.1 & 2 have neither made the payment covered by the said policy nor replied the letter of O.P No.1 & 2 and are bent upon to harass the complainant are reluctant to make the payment of the amount covered by the said policy.  The O.P No.4 has written a letter bearing No.556 dt. 07.04.2015 to the Treasury officer , Batala wherein he has stated that LIC premium towards policies of the complainant i.e. Rs. 1358/- P.M. towards policy No.470876218 and Rs. 737/- P.M. towards policy No.472216451 were deducted from the salary of the complainant for the month 03/2013 and the treasury officer, Batala made a report which was sent to the Treasury officer, Gurdaspur Vide No.12 dt 10.04.2015 to the effect that as per record of this bill No.3 dt. 27.05.2013 is duly recovered at TV No.135 dated 14.06.2013 and deduction of LIC amount of Rs. 6759/- has been made and accordingly LIC premium be adjusted but nothing has been done. The complainant has made futile visits to the offices of the opposite parties for his genuine and legitimate claim but the opposite parties did not make any heed towards the genuine request of the complainant. Finding no way out the complainant has sent a legal notice dated 24.08.2016 to the opposite party No.1 to 6 vide registered post which was dispatched on the even date and the O.P.No.6 has sent reply to the said legal notice vide memo No. PRD/A/20164138 dt.13.12.2006 whereby the O.P.No.6 admitted that the amount was deducted from the salary of the complainant  and in reply to the said legal notice sent by the O.P.No.5 to the counsel of the complainant vide Memo No.2991 dt.26.09.2016 he has also admitted the deduction from the salary of the complainant and the same was credited with the LIC but the OP No.1 & 2 have intentionally and willfully denied the collection of premium received from the employer of the complainant obviously in order to avoid the payment of the amount covered by the policy No.470876218 which has already matured on 28.11.2015. The complainant has discharged his part of the obligation enjoined in his capacity as consumer by way of making regular payment of premium towards Insurance Policy No.470876218, the O.P.No.1 & 2 are also under obligation and are duty bound to make payment of the amount covered by LIC Policy No.470876218 to the complainant. The complainant agitated the matter with the O.Ps No.1 & 2 and requested them to make the payment of the policy amount covered by policy No.470876218 but the O.Ps No.1 to 9 did not pay heed to the genuine requests of the complainant. As such prayed for maturity amount alongwtih interest 

12      The opposite parties No. 1 and 2 contended that it is correct that the complainant had obtained two Insurance policies bearing number 470876218 with the date of commencement as 28.11.2000 having the sum assured Rs 2,00,000/ pertains to the branch office, Gurdaspur and policy bearing number 472216451 which was issued on 13.2.2003 having the sum assured Rs 1,00,00,000/ pertains to the branch office unit I Amritsar from the opposite parties No. 1 and 2.  Policy bearing number 470876218 which was commenced on 28.11.2000 for 15 years was matured on 28.11.2015. Policy bearing number 470876218 pertains to the branch office Gurdaspur i.e. opposite party No. 1. The opposite parties NO. 1 and 2 contended that the complainant had not submitted requisite documents with the opposite party No. 1 for the admissibility of the maturity claim. and further contended that opposite party No 1 has not received any payment regarding the gaps of 09.2011,03.2013, 06.2013, 07.2013,08.2013, 09.2013,10.2013,11.2013, 12.2013, 01.2014, 02.2014, 03.2014,04.2014, 06.2014,07.2014,08.2014, 09.2014,10.2014, 12.2014 totaling 19 gaps from the complainant. 

13      At the outset of the complaint as well as reply filed by the opposite parties, it seems that whole of the controversy revolves around the fact that the complainant has not submitted the requisite documents to avail the maturity claim and further as per the version of opposite party Nos. 1 and 2 that there are 19 gaps for which the opposite parties No. 1 and 2 have not received the premiums. However, opposite party No. 4, 5, 6, 8, 9 have filed their written versions whereby all of them asserted that they have collected/ deducted the premium amount from the salary of the complainant for two policies and have remitted with the opposite parties No. 1 and 2 and as per their written versions, it seems that there is no gap in deducting and sending the premiums to the opposite parties No. 1 and 2.

14      As per the written version filed by opposite party No. 4, as per their statements the complainant has purchased two LIC policies, the mistake as alleged by the complainant arose in the month September 2006 and as such, the complainant allegedly approached opposite party No. 3 i.e. Block Development and Panchayat Officer, Verka to rectify the mistake as such, it is clear that mistake has been committed by the opposite party No. 3. On receiving the complaint, the opposite party No. 4 wrote a letter bearing No. 556 dated 7.4.2015 to the Treasury officer Batala wherein it was stated that the LIC premium towards the LIC Policies of the complainant were deducted from the salary of the complainant for the month of 03, 2013. The opposite party No. 4 has made all possible efforts to resolve the issue including that of writing a letter to treasury office Batala and to Chief Manager, LIC Gurdaspur. The complainant was posted in the office of Opposite party No. 4 for a period starting from 08-2012 to 04-2013 and the opposite party No. 4 has deducted the premiums regularly.

15      Whereas the opposite party No. 5 has stated in their written version that this office had received legal notice from the complainant on 24.8.2016 which had been duly replied vide their office letter No. 2991 dated 26.9.2016 in which they have admitted that deduction of installments of the policies have been made from complainant’s salary bills and recovery schedule has been sent to D.T.O Tarn Taran with salary bills. The complainant approached with the complaint on account of missing 4 months LIC deductions from 06, 2013 to 09, 2013 and he was produced with the proof of deduction of LIC installments from his salary vide this office memo No. 2991 dated 26.9.2016.

16      Opposite party No. 6 has taken the same stand and admitted that this division has deducted all the LIC premiums and sent the same to DTO, Amritsar for proper crediting it to the complainant's policies account. It was the responsibility of DTO Amritsar i.e. opposite party No. 9 to further credit the amount to the policy holder. Further the vouchers of bills of deductions of LIC premium in respect to this division have already been sent to opposite party No. 9.

17      The opposite party No. 8 i.e. DTO Gurdaspur admitted that they have already sent the premium to the opposite party No. 1 vide No. 3281 dated 8.7.2013 out of Rs. 41,90,640/- to the tune of Rs. 6,759/- of the DDPO Fatehgarh Churian. So no amount is lying in the office of opposite party No. 8. Further stated that Treasury office Batala has sent LIC premiums towards the policies of the complainant.

18      The opposite party No. 9 i.e. DTO Amritsar has stated that it is a paying agency of the State Govt. and the office of the opposite party No. 9 uses to  make payments viz. Salaries. Wages, pensions, GPF, Leave encashment, Gratuities etc. only against the bills submitted to it by the concerned Drawing & Disbursing Officer. The office of O.P. No. 9 does not make payments of Insurance Policies. The role of the office of O.P. No. 9 is only to send money related to LIC in the shape of Treasury Cheque to LIC office for the aggregated amount deducted monthly against LIC BT from the salary bills of different DDOs and nothing else. Therefore, it is very much clear from the version of the opposite party No. 9 that they collect/ receive the premiums and send it to the insurance company. 

19      From the above said discussion, it is very much clear that the opposite party Nos. 1 and 2 have received the premium amount for the respective policies i.e. 470876218 and 472216451. It is pertinent to mention here that the complainant had two policies and the amount is being deducted from the salary of the complainant simultaneously. Had, the opposite party Nos. 1 and 2 not received the premiums of both the policies, there must be question of receiving the premium of both the policies. There is dispute of gaps in receiving the premiums for only one policy i.e. 470876218, whereas, the premiums of both the policies is being deducted simultaneously. The opposite parties No. 1 and 2  raised the question of 19 gaps but all the opposite parties where the complainant has been served have specifically proved that all the premiums towards the policies have been deducted from the salary of the complainant and was sent to the opposite parties No. 1 and 2. If, there was any discrepancy, it was removed time to time as such, there is no gap in receiving the premiums.

20      The opposite parties where the complainant has been served, they have duly supported the version that they have deducted/ collected the premiums and sent to the opposite parties No. 1 and 2. This is very much clear from the material and documents placed on record by the opposite parties No. 3 to 9.  So,  we can safely reach to the conclusion that the opposite parties No. 1 and 2 have received the premiums time to time and there is no gap.

21      It is pertinent to mention here that the above said policy No. 407876218 has been matured dated 28.11.2015 and opposite parties NO. 1 and 2 have never raised the question about the gaps in receiving the premium before the year 2015 and they have never written any letter to the complainant as well as his employers that they are not receiving the premiums regularly. As and when, the complainant approached the opposite parties No. 1 and 2 to receive the maturity amount along with all ancillary benefits and interest they have started making lame excuses just to harass the complainant and till date, they have failed to release the maturity amount. The opposite parties No. 1 and 2 have never written a single letter that they have not received the premium for alleged 19 gaps. However, the complainant has duly proved by the documentary evidence, that there is no gap in sending the premiums by his employer. It is beyond the imagination that a person who is making the payments of premiums regularly for a long time of 15 years then how he cannot pay the premiums for only 19 gaps. As per the version of the opposite party No. 1 and 2 that they have not received the payment regarding certain gaps, then why, they have accepted the subsequent premiums which were paid by the complainant and why they have not raised any question at that time. They have raised the question only after the complainant approached to release the maturity amount of the policy.

22      For the foregoing reasons by withholding the maturity amount of the complainant, the opposite parties No. 1 and 2 harassed the complainant for his legal entitlement and is a deficiency in service as well as unfair trade practice.

23      The opposite parties No. 1 and 2 have withheld the maturity amount of the complainant for a long time since the year 2015 till date and they are using his hard earned money for their benefits and they are earning a huge interest amount upon the money of the complainant. As such, the complainant is entitled for the interest at the FDR (rates) prevailing time to time.

24      Furthermore, It is usual with the insurance company to show all types of green pastures to the customer at the time of selling insurance policies, and when it comes to payment of the insurance claim, they invent all sort of excuses to deny the claim. In the facts of this case, ratio of the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in case of DharmendraGoel Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., III (2008) CPJ 63 (SC) is fully attracted, wherein it was held that, Insurance Company being in a dominant position, often acts in an unreasonable manner and after having accepted the value of a particular insured goods, disowns that very figure on one pretext or the other, when they are called upon to pay compensation.  This ‘take it or leave it’, attitude is clearly unwarranted not only as being bad in law, but ethically indefensible.  It is generally seen that the insurance companies are only interested in earning the premiums and find ways and means to decline claims. In similar set of facts the Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in case titled as New India Assurance Company Limited Vs. Smt.UshaYadav& Others 2008(3) RCR (Civil) Page 111 went on to hold as under:-

“It seams that the insurance companies are only interested in earning the premiums and find ways and means to decline claims. All conditions which generally are hidden, need to be simplified so that these are easily understood by a person at the time of buying any policy.        The Insurance Companies in such cases rely upon clauses of the agreement, which a person is generally made to sign on dotted lines at the time of obtaining policy. Insurance Company also directed to pay costs of Rs.5000/- for luxury litigation, being rich.

25      In light of the above discussion, the complaint succeeds and the same is hereby allowed with costs in favour of the complainant against the opposite parties No. 1 and 2. The opposite Parties No. 1 and 2 are directed to make the payment of the amount covered by policy No. 470876218 to the complainant which had already matured on 28.11.2015 alongwith with interest at the FDR (rates) prevalent time to time. The complainant has been harassed by the opposite parties No. 1 and 2 unnecessarily for a long time. The complainant is also entitled to Rs. 40,000/- as compensation on account of harassment and mental agony and Rs 11,000/- as litigation expenses. Opposite Party  Nos. 1 and 2 are directed to comply with the order within one month from the date of receipt of copy of the order, failing which the complainant is entitled to interest @ 9% per annum, on the awarded amount, from the date of complaint till its realisation.  The present complaint against opposite parties No. 3 to 9 is dismissed. Copy of order will be supplied by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Amritsar to the parties as per rules. File be sent back to the District consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Amritsar.

Announced in Open Commission

24.11.2022