BEFORE THE A.P.STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION : AT HYDERABAD.

FA.No.6/2010 against CC.No.384/2009 District Consumer Forum-II, Hyderabad.

Between:

G.Maloji Rao,

Plot No.62,

Jahawar Rail Colony,

Sikh Road, Secunderabad – 500 009.

…Appellant/Complainant.

And

Life Insurance Corporation of India,

City Branch V

Basheerbagh,

Hyderabad – 500 029,

Rep. by its Branch Manager.

…Respondent/Opp.Party.

For the Appellant                   :  Party-in-person.

For the Respondent               :  Mr.K.Venkatesh Gupta.

QUORUM: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.APPA RAO, PRESIDENT,

AND

SMT.M.SHREESHA, HON’BLE MEMBER.

MONDAY, THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF JUNE,

TWO THOUSAND TEN.

Oral Order (Per Smt.M.Shreesha, Hon’ble Member)

*******  

1.         This is an appeal preferred by the complainant against the order of the District Consumer Forum-II, Hyderabad, dated 20.11.2009 in CC.No.384/2009.

2.         The brief facts as set out in the complaint are that the complainant has taken a policy called as “Jeevan Kishore” with profits in the name of his son, G.Giridhar on 20.09.1991.  The sum assured was Rs.15,000/-.  He agreed to pay Rs.920.30 ps towards premium by 28th March every year.  The maturity date of the policy was 28.03.2007.  On 01.08.2008 the complainant submitted the original policy along with discharge form to the opposite party for making the payment under the policy.  The complainant alleges that after several visits, the opposite party intimated that a cheque for Rs.30,000/- was sent to his residential address by speed post on 18.08.2008.  He further alleges that there was no such speed post received, nor response from the opposite party.  He submits that despite several requests as well as letters, the opposite party did not make any payment.  Hence, the complaint seeking directions to the opposite party to pay a sum of Rs.30,000/- towards payment of the policy amount together with interest at 21% per annum from 28.03.2007 i.e. from the date of maturity of the policy till realization, besides compensation of Rs.5,000/-and costs.

3.         The opposite party filed its written version contending that the complaint is liable to be dismissed for non-joinder of necessary party.  They submit that on submission of original policy along with discharge form, they had sent the maturity amount by way of cheque through speed post and it was received by the complainant. They further submit that they never received any letter from the complainant.  However, subsequent to the notice they addressed letter to the postal department requesting it to enquire into the matter as a special case.  After due verification they issued a fresh cheque to the complainant and it was received by him.  Hence, there was no deficiency in service.

4.         The District Forum after considering the pleadings put forth by both parties and the documentary evidence i.e. Exs.A.1 to A.3 and B.1 to B.3 disposed of the complaint by awarding costs of Rs.1,000/- to the complainant.

5.         Aggrieved by the said order, the complainant preferred this appeal contending that the District Forum did not appreciate the facts in its correct perspective.  It did not consider Ex.A.3 letter dated 4.11.2008 wherein the seal of the opposite party was affixed in receipt of the said letter.

6.         It is not in dispute that the complainant has taken Jeevan Kishore policy with profits from the opposite party on 28.03.1991, evidenced under Ex.A.1, by paying Rs.920.30 ps towards premium.  The maturity period is upto 28.03.2007.  The case of the complainant is that after maturity, he submitted the discharge form, but the opposite party informed orally that a cheque for Rs.30,000/- was sent by speed post on 18.08.2008.  It is evident from Ex.A.2 that the opposite party received the policy along with discharge form on 01.08.2008 and the endorsement shows that an amount of Rs.29,508.70 ps was sent through speed post by way of cheque.  The complainant made several representations to the opposite party that this amount was not received by him.  Thereafter the opposite party deposited the amount before the District Forum on 15.06.2009.  It is not in dispute that the opposite party sent a cheque by speed post on 18.08.2008 which was not received by the complainant.  Thus there is a lapse of ten months by the time the opposite party deposited the amount before the District Forum on 15.06.2009 again after lapse of four months.  We are of the considered opinion that a delay of ten months in depositing the amount of Rs.29,508.70 ps and again a further delay of four months in the payment of interest is inordinate delay, that too after maturity of the policy for which we are of the view that an amount of Rs.2,000/- towards compensation would meet the ends of justice.  This amount is to be paid within four weeks from the date of receipt of the order. 

7.         In the result, the appeal is allowed in part and the order of the District Forum is modified granting compensation of Rs.2,000/- to be paid by the opposite party to the complainant within four weeks from the date of receipt of the order.  No costs.

                       PRESIDENT

MEMBER

Dt: 14.06.2010.

Vvr.