Heard learned counsel for the appellant physically and learned counsel for respondent Nos. 1 to 3 on VC.

2.      Here is an appeal filed u/s 15 of the erstwhile Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter called the ‘Act’). Parties to this appeal shall be referred to with reference to their respective status before the District Forum.

3.   The case of the complainant/appellant in brief is that the complainant while serving at Koraput has purchased LIC policy bearing No. S10716068 with date of commencement as 9.12.1966 and date of maturity as 9.12.1996 from OPs with sum assured of Rs.10,000/-. It is alleged inter alia that OP No.2 settled the claim in 2012 by issuing cheque dated 10.2.2012 for Rs.18,039/-. Complainant alleged that OP No.1 did not pay penal interest and delayed interest on the assured amount. Thereafter, he complained before OP No.1. He also applied under RTI Act and subsequently, OPs paid Rs.364/- for delay in settlement of the maturity claim by cheque dated 10.9.2014. Complainant received the cehque on protest. Thereafter, alleging deficiency of service on the part of the OPs, complaint was filed.

4.      OPs filed written version admitting that the complainant has purchased the endowment profit policy for sum assured of Rs.10,000/- which was likely to be matured on 20.12.1996. After the maturity period, OPs paid Rs.18,039/- and later on paid delay settlement claim interest of Rs.364/- on 10.9.2014. OPs further averred that the complainant has not claimed the maturity amount for 16 years. However, for the delay in payment of maturity amount, OPs have already paid the interest and penal interest. So, there is no any deficiency of service on their part.

5.      After hearing both parties, learned District Forum has dismissed the complaint.

6.      Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the learned District Forum has committed error in law by not considering the fact that after maturity of the amount, the OPs are duty bound to pay the maturity amount in default of which they have to pay the penal interest. He submitted that the learned District Forum has not considered the complaint and other documents but without any basis rejected the complaint. Therefore, he submitted that the impugned order should be set aside by allowing the appeal.

7.      Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that after 1996 the complainant has not asked for payment of the maturity amount and the OPs could not insist to submit of the documents due to pendency of the vigilance case before the Special Judge, Berhampur. After the case was disposed of, they paid the maturity amount and penal interest. So, there is no any deficiency of service on their part. He supports the impugned order.

8.      Considered the submission of learned counsel for the  respective parties and perused the DFR including the impugned order.

9.      The complainant is required to prove the deficiency of service on the part of the OPs.

10.    It is admitted fact that the complainant has purchased the policy from the OPs and  it was likely to be matured in 1996. It is admitted fact that after 1996 the complainant neither applied for the maturity amount to the OPs nor OPs have asked for that. It is revealed from the record that there is a vigilance case where the documents were seized. After the vigilance case is disposed of, OPs paid the maturity amount with penal interest amount. The learned District Forum has already elaborately discussed in para – 4 of the impugned order in the following manner:-

                   “xxx   xxx   xxx

4. On the date of final hearing learned counsel for the complainant as well as OPs are present. Heard the arguments and perused the record, citation and scrutinized the documents placed on record as evidence filed by both parties. It reveals from the record that complainant submitted the necessary claim form coupled with required documents on 1.12.2011 though the complainant’s policy matured on 9.12.1996. It also reveals from the document that due to vigilance case before the Hon’ble Special Judges, Berhampur some of the documents of the complainant were seized for which he did not able to submit the documents soon after the maturity. Therefore the claim of the complainant to receive the interest from the date of maturity as claimed in his complaint is not tenable under the rules and regulations of the LIC of India which is beyond the terms and conditions of the policy. The OP has paid Rs.18,039/- on 11.02.2012 by way of cheque to the complainant and another amount of Rs.364/- was also paid on 10.9.2014 as penal interest  for 66 days by the OPs. As the OPs have already released the maturity value of the policy along with penal interest of Rs.364/- as such the OPs are not negligent in rendering proper service to the complainant. Hence in our considered view there is no deficiency and liability on the part of the OPs.”

11.    Since the documents have been already before the vigilance department and seizure list contains documents in question, the present complaint filed by the learned counsel for the complainant can hardly be accepted. However, the para – 4 of the impugned order is very elaborate.  Since there is already payment of maturity amount with penal interest, this Commission is of the view that the impugned order is legal and proper. Hence, there is no merit in the appeal.

12.    The appeal stands dismissed. No cost.

         DFR be sent back forthwith.

       Supply free copy of this order to the respective parties or the copy of this order be downloaded from Confonet or Website of this Commission to treat same as copy supplied from this Commission.