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 333/09 DATED 20.11.2009<br /> ORDER<br /> <br /> Complainant Manjunatha, S/o S.Nanjappa,<br /> R/at 1331, B.N.Street, 4th Cross, Mandi Mohalla, Mysore.<br /> (By Sri. S.P.Kumar, Advocate)<br /> <br /> Vs. <br /> Opposite Parties 1. The Senior Branch /Divisional Manager, Life Insurance Corporation of India, Jeevan Jyothi, Hullahalli Road, Nanjangud-571303.<br /> 2. Senior Divisional Manager, Life Insurance Corporation of India, Jeevan Prakasha, Mysore-Bangalore Road, Bannimantap, Mysore-15.<br /> (By Smt. M.S.Savithri, Advocate)<br /> <br /> Nature of complaint : Deficiency in service<br /> Date of filing of complaint : 03.09.2009<br /> Date of appearance of O.P. : 24.09.2009<br /> Date of order : 20.11.2009<br /> Duration of Proceeding : 1 MONTH 26 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. Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, the complainant has filed the complaint against the opposite parties, seeking direction to pay compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- towards loss, mental agony, hardship and cost of the proceedings.<br /> <br /> 2. In the complaint amongst other facts, it is alleged that, complainant was policy holder of the first opposite party bearing No.722275109. Monthly premium of Rs.308/- has been regularly deducted from the salary of the complainant by CDPO, Nanjangud. On 05.02.2009, the opposite party informed the complainant to receive maturity amount of Rs.29,588/- (deducting the loan amount). A sum of Rs.616/- alleging unpaid premium and Rs.924/- gap premium, not remitted to the complainant. On verification, the first opposite party told that the premium for the months of April, May and June 2008 was not paid. In fact, for these months CDPO deducting the premium. On 23.06.2009, the complainant gave an application to first opposite party to furnish details of the premium paid. The request was not complied with. Even not given proper reply. On 01.07.2009, the complainant received cheque for Rs.1,540/- thereby opposite parties admitted the fault committed by them. Complainant has not encashed the said cheque. Deducting the amount referred to above, the first opposite party has committed deficiency in service. Consequently, complainant suffered loss and mental agony as well as hardship. After lapse of five months from the date of maturity, on 10.07.2009 first opposite party sent letter to CDPO to stop payment of premium. The complainant had filed an application before the first opposite party to furnish details on 09.07.2009 under Right to Information Act. Till this day, it has not been complied with. On these grounds, it is prayed to allow the complaint.<br /> <br /> 3. The opposite parties in the version, admitted certain facts alleged in the complaint. But, contended that, a sum of Rs.924/- out of the maturity proceeds towards recovery of outstanding premium for the months of April, May and June 2008 including premium recovered for the month of December 2008 and January 2009 refunded to the complainant on 01.07.2009. It is stated that, on 05.02.2009, the opposite party informed to stop recovery of premium from the month of January 2009. Complainant failed to act upon the request. The opposite party furnished the copies of the documents sought by the complainant under RTI Act. It is denied that, opposite parties committed deficiency in service. Other allegations are denied. Hence, it is prayed to dismiss the complaint.<br /> <br /> 4. To prove the facts alleged in the complaint, the complainant has filed his affidavit and produced certain documents. On the other hand, Administrative Officer of the first opposite party has filed affidavit and certain documents are produced for the opposite parties. We have heard the arguments of the both learned advocates for the complainant and the opposite parties and perused the records.<br /> <br /> 5. Now the points arises for consideration are as under:-<br /> 1. Whether the complainant has proved any deficiency in the service on the part of the opposite parties and that he is entitled to the reliefs sought?<br /> 2. What order?<br /> <br /> 6. Our findings are as under:-<br /> Point no.1 : Partly in the Affirmative.<br /> Point no.2 : As per the order.<br /> <br /> REASONS<br /> <br /> 7. Point no. 1:- Grievance of the complaint is that, insurance premium for the month of April, May and June 2008 was in fact deducted by his employer and was credited to the opposite parties. But, in the maturity amount, Rs.616/- is deducted as unpaid premium and Rs.924/- as gap premium. The opposite parties in the version and the affidavit stated that, on 01.07.2009, the outstanding premium and the premium recovered for the month of December 2008 and January 2009 has been refunded on 01.07.2009. Firstly, the opposite parties have not specifically denied the claim of the complainant that out of his salary, regularly the premiums were deducted and credited. Even otherwise, in view of the contention of the opposite parties referred to above, establish beyond about that in fact of the premiums were paid or recovered regularly. Otherwise, there was no reason at all for the opposite parties to refund amount noted above.<br /> <br /> 8. The policy was due for maturity on 24.03.2009 as contended by the opposite parties and well in advance on 16.03.2009, the cheque in respect of maturity value was sent by the opposite party. As noted above, remaining amount has been refunded on 01.07.2009. Hence, it is clear that along with maturity value, said amount was not paid.<br /> <br /> 9. In spite of it, the opposite parties in the version and the affidavit have contended that, they have committed no deficiency in service and the allegations of the complainant in this regard is utterly false. Also, it is contended that, there is no cause of action to file the complaint as the opposite parties have settled the maturity proceeds well in advance and also refunded the excess premium recovered. Also, in 10th paragraph of the version, it is stated, there is no delay or deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. But, admitted facts referred to above, establish delay on the part of the opposite parties to pay the entire maturity value, which amounts to deficiency in service.<br /> <br /> 10. The contention of the opposite parties cannot be confused that, excess premium was paid by the complainant in spite of the intimation to stop payment of the premium. That is one aspect. Apart from it, as noted above, even though premium for three months noted above was recovered, that was deducted by the opposite parties in the maturity value. As regards, the contention of the opposite parties that, they informed the complainant to stop payment of the premium, a document at Sr.No.1 is produced, which is dated 05.02.2009. At paragraph 6, it is stated, the employer to stop deduction of premium with effect from January 2009. The letter is dated 05.02.2009, but the opposite parties informed the complainant that deduction of premium may be stopped from the month of January 2009. It goes to show that, well in time the opposite party did not intimate either the complainant or the employer to stop payment or recovery of the premium. Even otherwise, as noted above, in spite of the fact that, the premium for three months was paid or recovered, in the maturity value, amount was withheld stating as unpaid premium.<br /> <br /> 11. The complainant had made several correspondence with opposite parties and even he had to filed an application under RTI Act seeking particulars. In the version, the opposite parties have stated that copies were furnished to the complainant. But, that fact is not stated in the affidavit.<br /> <br /> 12. In the affidavit for first opposite party, it is stated that, the complainant has filed the complaint to tarnish the reputation of the opposite parties and to make unlawful gains if possible. In the version, it is claimed to dismiss the complaint with exemplary cost. As noted here before, admittedly there is delay in payment of the entire amount that the complainant was legally entitled to and it appears, the opposite parties made payment of that amount after the complainant repeatedly persuaded the matter even including filing application under RTI Act. Under the circumstances, the opposite parties instead of discharging their obligatory duties, falsely in the affidavit contended that complaint has been filed to tarnish the reputation of the opposite party and to make wrongful gain and opposite parties have sought exemplary cost. In fact, exemplary cost needs to be imposed on the opposite parties.<br /> <br /> 13. For the complainant, it is pointed out that, on earlier occasion also, in respect of another policy, he had faced similar situation, for which certain documents are produced.<br /> <br /> 14. For the complainant with reference to the documents on record, pointed out how the opposite parties negligently did not respect and respond to the claim of the complainant. We feel it not necessary to narrate the same at length.<br /> <br /> 15. From the records, we are of the opinion that the complainant has proved deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties and accordingly, our finding on the point is partly in affirmative. <br /> <br /> 16. Point No. 2:- Considering the discussion made above and conclusion arrived at, we pass the following order:- <br /> <br /> ORDER<br /> <br /> 1. The Complaint is partly allowed.<br /> 2. The opposite parties jointly and severally hereby directed to pay a sum of Rs.3,000/- compensation to the complainant towards mental agony, inconvenience caused etc., within a month from the date of this order, failing which the amount shall carry interest at the rate of 12% p.a.<br /> 3. Further, both opposite parties jointly and severally shall pay Rs.2,000/- to the complainant towards cost of the proceedings.<br /> 4. The complainant is at liberty to encash the cheque No.580657 for Rs.1,550/- dated 30.06.2009 and in case, it is lapsed, the opposite parties to revalidate the same if necessary.<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 20th November 2009)<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 />