West Bengal

Paschim Midnapore

CC/80/2014

Sri Kalipada Maity - Complainant(s)

Versus

Life Insurance Corporation of India - Opp.Party(s)

31 Dec 2014

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

PASCHIM MEDINIPUR.

 

 Complaint case No.80/2014                                                         Date of disposal:   31/12/2014                               

 BEFORE : THE HON’BLE PRESIDENT :  Mr. Sujit Kumar Das.

                                                      MEMBER :  Mrs. Debi Sengupta.

                                                      MEMBER :  Mr. Kapot Chattopadhyay.

  

  For the Complainant/Petitioner/Plaintiff : Mr. A. Ghorai ,  Advocate.

  For the Defendant/O.P.S.                       : Mr.D. Ghosh, Advocate.                                   

          

  Sri Kalipada Maity, S/o Late Atul Chandra Maity, Vill-Uchitpur, P.O  Kerur, P.S. Sabang, Dist-   

  Paschim Medinipur, Pin-721155…………..Complainant

                                                           Vs.

1. Life Insurance Corporation of India, Medinipur Branch Office, P.O. Medinipur, P.S. Kotwali, Dist. Paschim Medinipur, Pin-721101,
2. Life Insurance Corporation of India, Kharagpur Divisional Office, At Malancha Road, P.O. Rakha Jungle, P.S. Kharagpur Town, Dist. Paschim Medinipur, Pin 721303.…………Ops.

The case of the Complainant Kalipada Maity, in short, is that a policy of  50,000/- was

purchased  by the complainant which has been matured on 28/02/2014. It is alleged that even after maturity, the sum has not been credited in favour of his S/B A/C beings its no. 110401000000879 maintained in the Indian Oversis Bank Bural Branch. On quarry it is known that the sum on maturity was already remitted to S/B A/C no.110401000010879. Under these circumstances the Op. was requested by the complainant for transfer of the said sum from that A/C no. to the actual S/B A/C no.110401000000879. But no effective steps has been taken by the Op. and thereby the complainant ultimately came to us for necessary relief in terms of the prayer made in the petition of complaint. In this connection documentary evidence, namely Lawyer’s letter dated 11/06/2014 along with postal receipts, LIC certificate with premium receipt and pass book, was produced.

  The Op. LICI contested the case by filling W/O claiming that the matured sum was  

transferred in favour of the complainant as per his “mandate form”. Subsequently on the basis of his request, appropriate steps for transfer of the same sum was taken by the Op. Thus there is no question of deficiency of service as allaged arises. So the case suffers from want of cause of

Contd………….P/2

 

-  ( 2 ) -

 

action and thereby the case is not maintainable before this Forum. In order to support the claim some documents are filed those are letter dated 28/04/20104 and 17/06/2014 in the interest of the claim of the complainant so that the payment should be made in favour of the comp0lainant being the rightful payee.   

Upon the case of both parties the following issues are framed:-

Issues:

1. Whether the case is maintainable for want of cause of action?
2. Whether the complainant is entitled to get relief as prayed for?
3.  What other relief or reliefs the complainant is entitled to?

Decission with reason

Ld. Advocate for the complainant argued that the complainant is entitled to get his matured sum from the Op. but inspite of repeated request the Op. does not pay the same. So necessary order and direction may be passed in terms of the prayer made in the petition of complaint. In this connection the relevant evidence is referred to by the Ld. Advocate.

The submission of the complainant is strongly refuted by the Ld. Advocate appearing for the Op. with the help of documentary evidence. It is claimed that in the event of erroneous supply of A/C no. the payment could not be credited in favour of correct A/C as informed by the complainant at late stage. Even so, the Op. has taken suitable steps for transfer of the sum from the erroneous A/C to the correct A/C in order to satisfy the complainant. Thus there is no deficiency of service against the Op. The case should be dismissed.

We have carefully considered the case on the face of the documentary evidence and it appears that the maturity sum was deposited according to the mandate of the complainant. Thereafter, on further request of the complainant, the appropriate action has been initiated by the Op. So that the complainant may get his money in his correct A/C no. 

In view of the findings made herein above, we do not find any sufficient ground for holding decision against the Op. Thus it is held that the case should be dismissed for the want of cause of action.

Hence

            It is ordered that

                                         The case be and the same is dismissed on contest without cost.

  Dictated & Corrected by me

             

         President                          Member              Member                             President

                                                                                                                  District Forum

                                                                                                              Paschim Medinipur.