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 235-2010 DATED 16.07.2010<br /> ORDER<br /> <br /> Complainant Miss Latha.J.<br /> D/o K.Jayaramsetty, R/at No.LIG 81, 807, CITB (HUDCO), Nrupathunga Road, Kuvempunagar II Stage, Mysore.<br /> <br /> (By Sri.M.P.Bollappa, Advocate)<br /> <br /> Vs. <br /> Opposite Parties 1. The Divisional Manager,<br /> Life Insurance Corporation of India, Divisional Office, Bannimantap, Mysore.<br /> <br /> <br /> 2. Branch Manager,<br /> Life Insurance Corporation of India, Branch Office, Branch II, Bannimantap, Mysore.<br /> (By Smt.M.S.Savithri, Advocate)<br /> Nature of complaint : Deficiency in service<br /> Date of filing of complaint : 05.06.2010<br /> Date of appearance of O.P. : 21.06.2010<br /> Date of order : 16.07.2010<br /> Duration of Proceeding : 25 DAYS<br /> <br /> <br /> PRESIDENT <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> MEMBER<br /> <br /> <br /> MEMBER<br /> <br /> <br /> Sri. A.T.Munnoli,<br /> President<br /> <br /> 1. The complainant has filed the complaint under section 12 of the C.P.Act against the opposite parties, alleging deficiency in insurance service, seeking direction to pay the amount of the cheque dishonoured due to mention of wrong name in addition to the compensation and cost of the proceedings.<br /> <br /> 2. In the version, opposite parties have contended that, on the basis of NAP, the amount of the units or surrender value will be paid and further, it is stated that, opposite parties are ready to issue fresh cheque, if there is any mistake. <br /> <br /> 3. The complainant has filed her affidavit and produced certain documents. For the opposite parties, Administrative Officer has filed his affidavit and produced certain documents. We have heard the arguments and perused the records.<br /> <br /> 4. Now, we have to consider, whether the complainant has proved any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties and that she is entitled to the reliefs sought?<br /> <br /> 5. Our finding is partly in affirmative, for the following reasons.<br /> <br /> REASONS<br /> <br /> 6. So far concerned to the fact that, the complainant took money plus policy of the opposite parties and that she paid Rs.30,000/-, there is no dispute.<br /> <br /> 7. As per the terms and conditions of the policy, after three years policy holder was entitled to withdraw the amount and accordingly, the complainant surrendered the policy for payment of the money due as on 27.03.2010. In this regard also, there is no dispute.<br /> 8. The opposite parties sent a cheque for Rs.28,707/- dated 30.03.2010. When the complainant presented the cheque to the bank for encashment, it returned unpaid for the reason, “name differs”. With malafide intention, the opposite parties issued cheque in the wrong name. In spite of the notice issued, the opposite parties have not redressed the grievance. Though, issuance of the cheque by the opposite parties to the complainant is admitted, as regards incorrect name, opposite parties have pleaded ignorance. However, they admit that, the cheque has not been encashed so far. The complainant has produced the original cheque, which is at Sr.No.11 and the bank memo at Sr.No.12. Thus, it is clear that, though the name of the policy holder-complainant is “Latha.J”, the cheque was issued in favour of “Latha”. For this reason, the bank has returned the cheque. The fact that, cheque was issued mentioning the name only as Latha, is not denied or disputed by the opposite parties. Opposite parties contended that, they are ready to issue fresh cheque. It is different aspect.<br /> <br /> 9. Prior to filing the complaint, the complainant had issued notice to the opposite parties, copy of which is at Sr.No.14 and it was sent under certificate of posting as well as RPAD. That notice has been duly served. In spite of receipt of the notice, the opposite parties did not rectify the mistake and set right the grievance. Not only that, even after filing the complaint, on the date of the appearance, instead of admitting and rectifying the mistake and redressing the grievance of the complainant, opposite parties went on filing version, and then affidavit and arguing the matter.<br /> <br /> 10. Considering the facts and the material on record, prima-facie, deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties is established. The complainant has sought direction to the opposite parties to pay the amount of the cheque. In this regard, opposite parties are ready. But, in addition to the same, the complainant has claimed compensation of Rs.1,00,000/-. It is claimed by the complainant that, in view of the assurance of the opposite parties that, it is new marvelous Ulip scheme, which gives more benefits, she pledged the ornaments and had paid the amount for three years. As could be seen from the document at Sl.No.10, it is assured by the opposite parties that, it is money plus, a new marvelous ulip scheme, which gives more benefits. Also, it is stated, by paying only for three years, benefit up to 20 years could be got and risk up to 5 lakhs, is covered etc., Considering these offers made by the opposite parties, it is but natural that, the complainant might have attracted and paid the amount. Advocate for the complainant submitted that, though the policy is termed as money plus, in the case on hand, as per the terms and conditions of the policy, when the complainant surrendered the policy only a sum of Rs.28,707/- offered to be paid and it is not money plus, but money less policy. Considering the facts, this submission cannot be brushed aside. In addition to this and in view of the statement of the complainant that, she had pledged the ornament and paid the amount towards policy, we feel it just to award compensation to the complainant. At the cost of repititon, name of the complainant was wrongly mentioned and the opposite parties atleast could have rectified the same on receipt of the notice. Under the circumstances, claim of compensation by the complainant, is justified. Accordingly, following order:<br /> <br /> <br /> ORDER<br /> <br /> 1. The Complaint is partly allowed.<br /> 2. The opposite parties jointly and severally are hereby directed to pay a sum of Rs.28,707/- to the complainant with interest at the rate of 10% p.a. from 30.03.2010 (date of cheque) till realization, within a month from the date of this order.<br /> 3. Further, opposite parties jointly and severally shall pay a compensation of Rs.5,000/- to the complainant, within a month from the date of this order, failing which the amount shall carry interest at the rate of 10% p.a.<br /> 4. Likewise, opposite parties jointly and severally shall pay a sum of Rs.2,000/- to the complainant towards cost of the proceedings.<br /> 5. Give a copy of this order to each party according to Rules.<br /> <br /> (Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by her, transcript revised by us and then pronounced in the open Forum on this the day 16th July 2010)<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> (A.T.Munnoli) <br /> President <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> (Y.V.Uma Shenoi)<br /> Member<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> (Shivakumar.J.)<br /> Member<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />