IN THE DISTRICT CONSUMERS’ DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT MYSORE<br /> <br /> PRESENT: 1. Shri.A.T.Munnoli<br /> B.A., L.L.B (Spl.) - President <br /> <br /> 2. Smt.Y.V.Uma Shenoi<br /> M.Sc., B.Ed., - Member<br /> 3. Shri. Shivakumar.J.<br /> B.A., L.L.B., - Member<br /> <br /> CC 475/09 DATED 23.12.2009<br /> ORDER<br /> <br /> Complainant 1. The President, Karnataka Consumer’s Forum (Reg), 93, 9th cross, Gokulam, 1st stage, Mysore-570001.<br /> 2. Sri. N. Deepak Kumar, 613, Ashoka Road, Mysore-570001.<br /> (In person)<br /> <br /> Vs. <br /> Opposite Party 1. Chief (SBU-P & Gs) P & GS Department, Life Insurance Corporation of India, Central Office, 5th Floor, Yogakshema Jeevan Bima Marg, Mumbai-400021.<br /> 2. Manager, Pension & Group Scheme Department, Life Insurance Corporation of India, KRS Road, Mysore-570020.<br /> <br /> Nature of complaint : Deficiency in service<br /> Date of filing of complaint : 19.12.2009<br /> Date of appearance of O.P. : <br /> Date of order : 23.12.2009<br /> Duration of Proceeding : <br /> <br /> <br /> PRESIDENT <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> MEMBER<br /> <br /> <br /> MEMBER<br /> <br /> Sri. A.T.Munnoli,<br /> President<br /> <br /> 1. The complainants have filed the complaint against the opposite parties Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, seeking a direction to desits from their unfair trade practice of differentiating the pensioners under the group insurance scheme from those policy holders who have purchased pension policies under other schemes such as Jeevan Nidhi; to re-fix the pension to all retirees applying the terms and conditions of Jeevan Nidhi table; to pay compensation of Rs.2,000/- to each widow of late Sri. B.K. Ramachandra Rao and second complainant; Rs.10,000/- as cost of proceedings to the first complainant; to remit Rs.50,000/- to the Consumer Welfare Fund and to award any other reliefs deemed fit.<br /> <br /> 2. It is alleged in the complaint that, the opposite parties are the authorities set up under the Life Insurance Corporation of India Act 1956, to conduct individual and group life insurance business and to protect the interest of policy holders in various insurance plans. First complainant had received one representation from Smt. Subbalaxmi of Tumkur that she is aggrieved by the wrong fixation of pension of her late husband Sri. B.K. Ramachandra Rao, who was an officer of LIC at Bangalore and handed over copies of representation made to the first opposite party. First complainant was contemplating to proceed with the matter relating to the scheme of annuity sold by LIC, the second complainant approached the 1st complainant seeking advice regarding pension fixed under the group insurance scheme by the second opposite party. The case of Sri. B.K. Ramachandra Rao and second complainant pertains to fixation of pension under group insurance scheme, this complaint is filed not only on behalf of these two consumers but also on behalf of large number of retirees affected by the unfair trade practice of the LIC of India. The second complainant was working in J.K. Industries Limited, Mysore and was covered under the group insurance master policy No:35465. Second complainant was relieved on 17.08.2004 from service. Second opposite party had fixed his pension at Rs.1,993/- quarterly whereas the pension fixed to one of his colleague was at Rs.2,108/-. The amount left with LIC in the case of second complainant was Rs.1,68,404/- whereas that of K. Vaidyaashwaran was Rs.1,26,769/-. Then certain earlier proceedings are narrated. On these grounds, it is prayed to allow the complaint, issuing directions noted above.<br /> <br /> 3. Considering the facts alleged in the complaint and the reliefs sought, we heard regarding the maintainability of the complaint and perused the records.<br /> <br /> 4. Now, we have to consider whether the present complaint is maintainable, for the reliefs sought by the complainant? <br /> <br /> 5. For the following reasons our finding is in negative.<br /> <br /> REASONS<br /> <br /> 6. The alleged unfair trade practice against the opposite parties is, difference in the pension under the group insurance scheme and the other schemes marketed by the LIC such as Jeevan Nidhi. During the course of hearing, it was submitted that, the pension fixed in respect of different schemes differs and hence, it is prayed to re-fix the pension as per the terms and conditions of Jeevan Nidhi table to all.<br /> <br /> 7. In the third paragraph of the complaint, it is stated that, the opposite parties being Authority set up under the Act of parliament to offer insurance service to the policy holder. The LIC of India is governed by the Act, Rules and Regulations framed in that regard. As per the Rules and Regulations, taking into consideration of various aspects, pension rate will be fixed. This aspect has been mentioned in the reply of the opposite party. Same need not be repeated and reproduced in detail. Considering various aspects, different pension rate fixed cannot be termed as unfair trade practice and in the absence of Rules and Regulations from the competent Authorities, this Forum has no power to direct the opposite parties to pay the pension to all the persons, who are entitle to, at the particular rate.<br /> <br /> 8. As stated in the reply by the LIC of India, different rate of pension will be fixed, taking into consideration of various aspects. In this regard, we would like to note an example. A nationalized bank sanction crop loan, education loan, house building, commercial purpose etc.,. The rate of interest in respect of these different kinds of loan of all nationalized banks differ. Different interest rate is fixed, for various reasons which need not be narrated in detail. In the same manner, different rate of pension must have been fixed by the LIC of India. Nationalized banks cannot be directed to charge interest on all different kinds of loan at the same rate. Likewise, we are of the opinion that, the opposite parties cannot be directed to pay the pension at particular rate to the persons entitled to under different category or schemes of LIC, in the absence of Rules or Regulations in that regard.<br /> <br /> 9. As regards the case of B.K. Ramachandra Rao, was resident of Tumkur and had approached the first opposite party Mumbai and the present complaint is filed at Mysore through the first complainant. The fact that, second opposite party is situated at Mysore is not concerned in respect of B.K. Ramachandra Rao.<br /> <br /> 10. As regards second complainant, this is third round of litigation. We feel it, not necessary to narrate the same at length.<br /> <br /> 11. For the reasons noted above, we are of the opinion that, this Forum cannot give direction to the opposite parties to fix the pension at particular rate in respect of all the schemes of the LIC of India and hence, the present complain is not maintainable.<br /> 12. Accordingly, we pass the following order.<br /> <br /> ORDER <br /> 1. The complaint is dismissed. <br /> 2. Give a copy of this order to complainants according to Rules.<br /> (Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by her, transcript revised by us and then pronounced in the open Forum on this the day 23rd December 2009)<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> (A.T.Munnoli) <br /> President <br /> <br /> <br /> (Y.V.Uma Shenoi)<br /> Member<br /> <br /> <br /> (Shivakumar.J.)<br /> Member<br /> <br />