Andhra Pradesh

Visakhapatnam-II

CC/370/2012

Vengala Narayana Rao - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

C.R. Vasantha Kumar

27 Feb 2015

ORDER

                                              Date of Registration of the Complaint:07-11.2012

                                                                                                Date of Order:27-02-2015

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMERS FORUM-II AT

                             VISAKHAPATNAM

 

P  r  e  s  e  n  t:

1.  Sri H. Ananda Rao, M.A., L.L.B.,

     President           

2. Smt K. Saroja, M.A. B.L.,

     Lady Member 

                                3. Sri C.V. Rao,  M.A., B.L.,

                                     Male Member

 

                            Friday, the 27^th day of February 2015.

                                 CONSUMER CASE No.370/2012

Between:-

Dr. Vengala Narayana Rao,

S/o Late Appala Swamy, Hindu, aged

58 years, residing at Q. No. B-3/4,

K.V. Staff Quarters, S.V.P. National

Police Academy, Shivarampally,

Hyderabad-500 052.            

….. Complainant

And:-

Life Insurance Corporation of India, represented

by its Branch Manager, Gajuwaka Branch, situated

at Plot No. 19/1, IDA-B, Near APIIC Office, Auto

Nagar, Visakhapatnam-530 012.

                                                                                          …  Opposite Party    

                     

          This case coming on 13.02.2015 for final hearing before us in the presence of Sri Sri C.R. Vasantha Kumar, Advocate for the Complainant and  D. Aruna Kumari and Advocate for the Opposite Party and having stood over till this date for consideration, this Forum made the following:

 

                                                ORDER

          (As per Sri. H. Ananda Rao, Honourable President, on behalf of the Bench)

 

1.       This consumer complaint is filed by the Complainant against the  Opposite Party directing him to refund a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten thousand only) along with interest @ 24% p.a. from 15.02.2012 till the date of payment, to reimburse the travel and other expenditure incurred on two occasions to Visakhapatnam from Hyderabad at Rs.10,000/-, to pay a compensation of Rs.10,000/- and costs of Rs.3,000/-.  

 

  2.     The case of the Complainant in brief is that he has availed LIC’s Profit  Plus for the Premium payable term of 5 years @ Rs.10,000/- and the Opposite Party issued a policy bearing No.695031754, dated 29.02.2008 and policy date of maturity is 27.02.2018.    As per terms and conditions of the maturity policy, he has paid premium regularly and total Rs.50,000/-  to the Opposite Party and when he submitted an application for withdrawal and he sent a cheque for Rs.38,701/- and he was shell shocked, immediately addressed a letter dated 26.03.2012 duly informing the Opposite Party to pay the difference amount but there was no proper response which resulted to approach the Opposite Party all the way travelling from Hyderabad to Visakhapatnam and incurred an amount of Rs.10,000/- towards travelling expenses for payment of balance of Rs.10,000/-.   Hence, this Complaint.

 

3.       The case of the Opposite Party denying the material averments of the Complaint is that the Complainant is the holder @ Rs.10,000/- p.a. and the same was paid by the Complainant and when he applied for surrender value,   after the receiving all the necessary requirements, they paid an amount of Rs.38,701/- through cheque and non adjustment of the premium of Rs.10,000/- paid at City Branch-13 Hyderabad on 15.02.2012 and non allotment of units for the premium was noticed by the Gajuwaka Branch after payment of the surrender value and after noticing mistake they are ready to pay the balance surrender value of Rs.9,320/- to the customer.   They also submitted the Complainant is entitled to receive the full surrender value of Rs.48,021/- as per the terms and conditions of the policy.   Therefore, the Complainant is eligible for the remaining surrender value of Rs.9,320/- and they are ready to issue the same.   For these reasons, there is no deficiency of service on their part.   Therefore, the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

 

4.       To prove the case on behalf of the Complainant, he filed his sworn affidavit   and got marked as Exs.A1 to A10.   On the other hand, on behalf of the Opposite Party, he filed his sworn affidavit.      No documents were marked for the Opposite Party.

 

5.       Ex.A1 is the photo copy of Policy issued by the Opposite Party in favour of the Complainant dated 27.02.2008.   Ex.A2 is the Receipt issued by the Opposite Party in favour of the Complainant dated 27.02.2008.    Ex.A3 is the Receipt issued by the Opposite Party in favour of the Complainant dated 02.03.2009.   Ex.A4 is the Receipt issued by the Opposite Party in favour of the Complainant dated 22.04.2010.   Ex.A5 is the Receipt issued by the Opposite Party in favour of the Complainant dated 31.05.2011.   Ex.A6 is the Receipt issued by the Opposite Party in favour of the complainant dated 15.02.2012.   Ex.A7 is the letter addressed by the Opposite Party to the Complainant dated 29.02.2012.   Ex.A8 is the Status Report of Policy issued by the Opposite Party in favour of the Complainant dated 13.03.2012.   Ex.A9 is the addressed by the Complainant to the Opposite Party dated 26.03.2012.   Ex.A10 is the letter addressed by the Complainant to the Opposite Party dated 11.04.2012.

 

6.       The Complainant filed written arguments.

7.       Heard oral arguments from both sides.

8.       Now the point that arises for determination is:-

Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite   Party and the Complainant is entitled for the reliefs for?

 

9.       On 19.03.2013 an Advocate for the Opposite Party filed a memo after issuing notice to the counsel for the Complainant that the disputed premium amount of Rs.10,000/- with interest Rs.1,852/- through cheque No. 844697 dated 27.01.2012 for amount of Rs.11,852/- paid to the Complainant and requested to close the Opposite Party.  The counsel for the Opposite Party make an endorsement on the memo by receiving the cheque without prejudice to their contention in the complaint, it may be recorded.   Thus it is clear as seen from the memo the Opposite Party paid the amount sought by the Complainant in his complaint together with interest thereon i.e., total amount of Rs.11,852/- since the amount was received by the Complainant, it is recorded accordingly.

 

10.     It is the case of the Complainant that he incurred an amount of Rs.10,000/- towards travelling and other expenditure on two occasions  to go to Hyderabad from Visakhapatnam  in order to approach the Opposite Party. s Admittedly the Complainant has not filed any recorded evidence whatsoever in this regard.   The relevant rail or bus tickets are not filed.   In the absence of any proof or evidence, it cannot be held that the Complainant incurred an amount of Rs.10,000/- on two occasions in order to go to Hyderabad from Visakhapatnam.

 

11.     Whether the Complainant is entitled for compensation of Rs.10,000/- is to be considered.   It appears as seen from the evidence of PW-1 that the Complainant was compelled to approach the Opposite Party and therefore experienced a lot of physical strain besides mental agony and financial loss. It is un-dispute fact that the Opposite Party did not refund the amount subscribed by the Complainant.   Naturally that made have put the Complainant to suffer some mental agony besides physical stress and strain.   In this view of the matter, we sincerely feel that it is a fit case to award compensation.   But that does not and cannot mean to say that the Complainant claim for compensation is acceptable.    Having regard to all these facts and circumstances, we are of the considered opinion, award of compensation of 2,500/- would serve the ends of justice.   We therefore, proposed to award compensation of Rs.2,500 /-,  in the circumstances of the case on hand. Accordingly this point is answered. 

 

12.     Before parting our discussion, it is incumbent and imperative on our part to consider the costs of litigation.    The Complainant ought not have to approach this Forum had his claim for refund of the sum of Rs.10,000/- or reliefs sought for have been honored by the Opposite Parties within a reasonable time and in view of the matter, the Complainant’s claim for claims for cost deserves to be allowed.   In our considered and unanimous opinion awarding a sum of Rs. 2,500/- as costs would appropriate and reasonable.   Accordingly costs are awarded.

 

13.     In the result, the Complaint is allowed in part directing the Opposite Party to pay an amount of Rs.2,500/- (Rupees Two thousand and five hundred only) towards compensation and Rs.2,500/- (Rupees two thousand and five hundred only) towards costs to the Complainant and rest of reliefs are hereby dismissed.

     Dictated to the Steno, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced by us in the Open Forum, this the 27^th day of February, 2015.

   Sd/-                                       Sd/-                                             Sd/-

Male Member                      Lady Member                                 President

 

                                       APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

For the Complainant:-

NO.	DATE	DESCRIPTIONOFTHEDOCUMENTS	REMARKS
Ex.A01	26.10.2006	Policy Bond bearing No.6939933798 in favour of D. Gandhi issued by the OP	Photo copy
Ex.A02	09.04.2012	Date of Birth Certificate of D. Gandhi issued by GVMC	Original
Ex.A03	24.11.2009	Death Information Certificate issued by Visakhapatnam Christian Cemeteries Board	Photo copy
Ex.A04	23.11.2009	Letter addressed by the complainant to the OP	Office copy
Ex.A05	30.01.2010	Letter sent by the OP to the Complainant	Original
Ex.A06	10.08.2010	Registered Lawyer’s Notice issued by the Complainant’s counsel to the OP	Office copy
Ex.A07		Acknowledgement	Original
Ex.A08	10.04.2007	Claimant’s Statement of the Complainant	Original
Ex.A09	09.02.2010	Claim Statement issued by the OP	Office copy
Ex.A10	16.10.2006	Policy bearing No.693857391 in favour of D. Gandhi	Original
Ex.A11	10.07.2012	Registered Lawyer’s Notice issued by the Complainant’s counsel to the OP	Office copy

For the Opposite Party:-

NO.	DATE	DESCRIPTIONOFTHEDOCUMENTS	REMARKS
Ex.B01	27.06.2012	Letter issued by the Complainant to the OP	Attested copy
Ex.B02	27.06.2012	Letter issued by the Complainant to the OP	Attested copy
Ex.B03	09.10.2012	Status Report of Policy No.696722460  issued by the OP in favour of the Complainant	Attested copy
Ex.B04	27.06.2012	Letter issued by the Complainant to the OP	Original

 

   Sd/-                                         Sd/-                                                         Sd/-

Male Member                       Lady Member                                   President