This is an application u/s.12 of the C.P. Act, 1986.

          Complainant Debu Sarkar by filing this compliant has submitted that OP2 Ajoya Bhowmick, was original policy holder being policy bond No.S/410049306 T-T 93/25 of Rs.40,000/- and other policy being No.S/94392686 T-T 14/25 of Rs.3,000/- only and said Ajoya Bhowmick received loan from the complainant and assigned the aforesaid policies as collateral securities and assigned the policies and accordingly, as per guideline of LICI assignment deed was executed in favour of the complainant by the OP2 and same was submitted to the LICI who endorsed the assignment to the policy bond.  OP Insurance Company recorded the above assignment in favour of the assignee, the present complainant and both the policies were recorded on 20^th April, 1994.  Thereafter, complainant as assignee claimed maturity amount from the LICI in respect of the policy No.S/410049306 but LICI remained silent over the matter even  after repeated requests made by the complainant and submission of document in support of proof of assignment of policy.  Thereafter, complainant sent original policy with letter dated 05-03-2012 which was duly received by the LICI but they remained silent. 

          After maturity of the policy assignee complainant claimed voucher from LICI again to Divisional Manager on 02-04-2012 but they did not pay any heed for which demand notice was sent by the complainant’s lawyer to OP Insurance Company but they did not pay any heed and neglected to repay the above matured amount of Rs.40,000/- against that policy being No. S/410049306 T-T 93/25.

          On the other hand, OP LICI by filing written statement submitted that OP1 is not a party to loan agreement dated 26-04-1994 by and between the complainant and the OP2.  The policy was sent to the LICI for assignment as per instruction of OP2 in favour of the complainant no doubt.

          Fact remains the disputed policy S/410049306 commenced on and from 28-03-1987 and sum assured is Rs.40,000/- and another policy bearing No. S/94392686 were no doubt assigned in favour of the complainant but the date of first unpaid premium is on 6/1987 and complainant has failed to prove that regularly premium was paid by the complainant or by the assignor and so, on the date of maturity there was no paid up value and no discharge voucher could be issued because the said policy did not acquire any paid up value and as per policy condition maturity value is not payable as the policy remained in the lapsed condition since 6/87 till the date of maturity and there is no paper to show that they revived it at any point of time and so the complainant has intentionally filed the complaint to harass the LICI and fact remains it is the duty of the complainant to prove that policy was valid till the date of maturity or revived after lapse and was enforceable on the date of maturity and complainant has not filed any premium receipt for discharging his onus that the policy was in force and not in lapsed condition and in the present case the relation between assignor and assignee and beneficial interest, right and title under the policy is immaterial and is of no value for filing the present complaint.

          In the above circumstances, there was no laches or deficiency on the part of the OP for which the complainant should be dismissed.

Decision with Reasons

On overall evaluation of the complaint and the written version and particularly the assignment document, copy of the policy bond etc. it is undisputed fact that the present disputed policy was in the name of the OP2 and no doubt OP2 assigned their policy in favour of the complainant and that assignment document was accepted by the OP Insurance Company and as per said assignment document on maturity complainant being an assignee is entitled to get the maturity of the said amount of the policy in question and complainant has claimed that matured amount of the disputed policy No. S/410049306 and its maturity date was 28-02-2012 and monthly premium was Rs.178-70 paisa and the said policy commenced on 28-03-1987 date of proposal was 28-02-1987 and original policy holder was in the name of Ajoya Bhowmick (OP2).  Truth is that said Ajoya Bhowmick assigned the said policy in favour of the complainant on 28-04-1994 and insurance company accepted the said assignment on 10-05-1994.  Fact remains on assigning the policy the assignor (OP1) lost his right over the policy and assignee (complainant) got the right and became the owner of the policy and as per provision of Assignment a valid assignment cannot be cancelled.  So, it is clear that complainant became the assignee and also the total holder of the said policy and in view of the above position of law it is clear after 1994 and on and from 28-04-1994 OP2 had no legal right to continue the policy because he already lost his all right over the policy and complainant as assignee acquired such right.  So, it is his responsibility or liability to continue the said policy but it is evident from the complainant’s own complaint that he never paid any premium till date of maturity of the policy @Rs.178-70. 

          So, it is clear that complainant as assignee never paid any premium, up to date of maturity as per policy condition then it is clear that complainant as assignor never paid any premium to continue the said policy.

          On the contrary after proper scrutiny and scanning of the documents of the complainant it is found that complainant has failed to prove that assignor OP2 after opening the policy continued the policy by payment of monthly premium and complainant has also failed to prove that his assignor OP2 after commencement of the present policy always paid monthly premium regularly up to 1994.  But it is found from the OP’s document that the original policy holder (assignor OP2) did not pay any other premium except the opening first premium against that policy for which the policy was found lapsed with effect from 6/87 and no doubt complainant has failed to prove by any cogent document that his assignor OP2 paid premiums up to 1994 or up to the date of assigning the present disputed policy in favour of the complainant assignee.  Considering the legal aspect we are convinced to hold that no doubt in the hands of the complainant there is no document to show that he or his assignor since June, 1987 had been paying the premium of the disputed policy per quarterly up to the month of March, 2012.  When that is the fact then it is clear that complainant has miserably failed to prove that the disputed policy was valid up to the date of maturity on 28-03-2012.  On the contrary OP has proved that the policy was lapsed with month of June, 1987.  At the same time from the complainant’s own version it is clear that after that no premium was paid on 28-04-1994.  Complainant as assignor did not pay the premium which is no doubt a truth because complainant has not stated that he continued the policy by paying such premium as assignor till maturity of the policy.  So, it is clear that it is no doubt a lapse policy when that is the fact then it is clear that there is no laches, negligence, deficiency on the part of the OPs and complainant has failed to prove the life of the disputed policy as on the date of maturity.  On the contrary it appears that the policy was not revived at any point of time after lapse of that policy in the month of June, 1987.  So, in respect of a lapse policy complainant as assignee again get any benefit because as per provision of insurance policy condition and terms no one is entitled to get the benefit of the maturity account when complainant has miserably failed to prove the valid force of the disputed policy on the date of maturity or any sort of revival of the policy at any point of time or any payment of premium as per condition of the policy.

          In the light of the above observation and findings we are convinced to hold that complainant has miserably failed to prove that policy in question in respect of which complainant has prayed for relief against OP insurance against alleged maturity dated 28-03-2012 and further has failed to prove that the said policy which was lapsed on month June, 1987 was revived and further failed to prove on his assignment he paid any premium after the date of approval of the assignment deed by the LICI on 28-05-1994.  So, there is no other alternative but to hold that the complainant has miserably failed to prove any sort of illegal, arbitrary act, deficiency, negligence on the part of the OP Insurance Company.

          At the same time assignor OP1 lost his all right title in respect of which the policy with effect from 28-05-1994 and complainant is not a consumer of OP2 and for which against the OP2 complainant cannot get any relief in the present Consumer Forum as there is no relationship in between the complainant and OP2 as consumer and service provider of OP2.        

In the result, the case fails.

Hence,

Ordered

That the case be and the same is dismissed on contest against OP1 and same is dismissed ex parte against OP2 without any cost.

          But OP1 Insurance Company hereby directed to keep close view about this policy in future.