Life Insurance Corproation of India, Raichur V/S Gulam Moin S/o. Gulam Rasool, Raichur - Consumer Court Case

Karnataka

Raichur

CC/10/52

Gulam Moin S/o. Gulam Rasool, Raichur - Complainant(s)

Versus

Life Insurance Corproation of India, Raichur - Opp.Party(s)

Sri. C.Keshavarao

31 Dec 2010

ORDER

Dist. Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Sath Kacheri, Raichur.
Dist. Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Sath Kacheri, Raichur.
consumer case(CC) No. CC/10/52

Gulam Moin S/o. Gulam Rasool, Raichur						...........Appellant(s)
Vs.
Life Insurance Corproation of India, Raichur Life Insurance Corporation of India, Manvi						...........Respondent(s)

BEFORE:

Complainant(s)/Appellant(s):

OppositeParty/Respondent(s):

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended

Highly recommended!

5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended

Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.

ORDER

JUDGEMENT By Sri. Pampapathi President:- This is a complaint filed by complainant Gulam Moin against the LIC of India U/sec. 12 of Consumer Protection Act for to direct the opposites LIC of India to extend the pension with all other benefits arising out of his LIC Policy bearing No. 662062145 from 01-06-06 till payment, to pay compensation amount of Rs. 50,000/- with cost and other reliefs as prayed in this complaint. 2. The brief facts of the complainants case are that, he subscribed Policy bearing No. 662062145 from opposite No-2 while he was working as a Sherestedar in Munsiff & JMFC Court, Deodurga. It is Jeevan Suraksha Policy, he paid regular premiums to opposites by deducting the amount in his salalry. The complainant was about to retire on 30-06-06, as such he requested the opposite No-2 in the month of July-1997 to reduce the term of the policy from 122-10 to 122-9, so that the pension would commence with effect from 01-06-06. The opposite No-2 not issued original bond in respect of the said policy in spite of several requests made to it. After his retirement he approached the opposites to pay pension under the policy. But opposites not concerned his requests, accordingly this complaint was filed by him against the opposites for the reliefs as noted in his complaint. 3. The opposites LIC of India appeared in this case through its Advocate and filed written version by denying all the allegations made against it. The LIC of India Raichur Branch has not received any letters from the complainant to reduce the term of the policy from the term 122-10 to 122-9. The complainant being an official of the court, he was transferred from place to place, neither the complainant nor his officer furnished status of the policy regarding the periodical payment of the premiums etc., there was no deficiency in its service, even now it is ready to settle the claim as per the terms and conditions of the policy and as per calculation memo was filed by showing the amount for which the complainant is entitled for. Hence it prayed for to dismiss the complaint among other grounds. 4. In-view of the pleadings of the parties. Now the points that arise for our consideration and determination are that: 1. Whether the complainant proves that, he requested the opposite No-2s Manager in the month of July-1997 to reduce the term of the policy from 01-22-10 to 122-9 so that his pension would commence with effect from 01-06-06 as he was retired from his service on 30-06-06, but opposite LIC of India not issued original bond on his requests event though but it received premium regularly from his officers, after retirement he requested the opposites to pay the pension amount, but opposites shown their negligence in making payment with one or the other reasons and thereby opposites found guilty under deficiency in its services.? 2. Whether complainant is entitled for the reliefs as prayed in his complaint.? 3. What order? 5. Our findings on the above points are as under:- (1) In the affirmative (2) As discussed in the body of this judgement and as noted in the final order. (3) In-view of the findings on Point Nos. 1 & 2, we proceed to pass the final order for the following : REASONS POINT NO.1 :- 6. To prove the facts involved in these two points, affidavit-evidence of the complainant was filed, he was noted as PW-1. The documents Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-7 are marked. On the other hand affidavit-evidence of Manager (L&HPF) of opposite was filed, he was noted as RW-1. Document Ex.R-1 is marked. 7. From the pleadings of the parties and their respective evidences, we have noticed some of the following disputed facts in between the parties are:- 1. Whether the complainant has not intimated to LIC of India regarding the clear status of the policy with regard to payment of periodical premiums etc, as complainant was transferred from place to place and thereby LIC of India was not able to make the payment. 2. Whether the opposite No-2 not received a letter from the complainant regarding reducing the terms of the policy from 122-10 to 1-22-9 for to issue original policy. 3. Memo of calculation filed by opposite No-2 dt. 21-10-10 by giving a liberty to complainant to opt any methods of for calculation as it is ready to make the payment. 8. Keeping in view of the above said disputed facts by LIC of India with regard to claim of the complainant. The document Ex.P-4 is a material document it is a letter addressed by the learned Civil Judge & JMFC Deodurga regarding the deduction of monthly premiums in the salary of the complainant and Ex.P-4(a) is detailed recovery statements from June-2005 to December-2005 and January 2006- to June-2006. Apart from it, complainants letter Ex.P-3, Ex.P-3(a) & Ex.P-4(1) clearly goes to show that, he requested the opposite authorities for to reduce the term of the policy from 122-10 to 122- 9. No documents forthcoming from the side of the opposite to discard these documents Ex.P-3, Ex.P-(a) and Ex.P-4(1), as such we are of the view that, the delay made by opposite to settle the claim of complainant is due to its negligence and not due to negligence of the complainant. Ex.R-1 is Duplicate Policy which is not coming to any help of the opposites. 9. Now the calculation memo filed by the opposite was objected by the complainant by filing his own memo in which certain allegations made against opposites. 10. We have taken note of all the facts and circumstances stated above and we are of the view that, the reasons mentioned in the written version and in the affidavit-evidence of RW-1 are not proper and sufficient to make delay in payment of the pension amount to the complainant, as such we have rejected the submissions made by the learned advocate for opposite in this regard. It is a clear cut case of deficiency in service by LIC of India towards complainant, accordingly we answered Point No-1 in affirmative. 11. The first prayer of the complainant is to direct the opposite LIC of India to extend the payment and all other benefits arising out of his Policy No. 662062145 from the opposite from 01-06-06. In view of our reasons and finding on Point No-1, the complainant is entitled for to get pension along with all other benefits arising our of his Policy No. 662062145 from 0-06-06. from the opposite LIC of India. 12. A lumpsum amount of Rs. 3,000/- is granted to the complainant under the head of deficiency in service on the part of opposite LIC of India. Further complainant is entitled to get a lumpsum amount of Rs. 3,000/- towards cost of this litigation. He also entitled to get 9% interest on all the amount for which the complainant is entitled for from the date of this complaint till realization of the full amount, accordingly we answered Point No-2. POINT NO.3:- 13. In view of our findings on Point Nos-1 & 2, we proceed to pass the following order: ORDER The complaint filed by the complainant is partly allowed with cost. The complainant is entitled for to get the pension with other benefits arising out of his LIC Policy bearing No. 662062145. The complainant is also entitled to recover a total amount of RS. 6,000/- as noted while dealing with Point No-2, from the opposite LIC of India. The complainant is also entitled to recover future interest at the rate of 9% p.a. on the total amount for which he is entitled under the said policy from the opposite LIC of India. Opposite LIC of India is granted one month time to make the entire payment from the date of this judgment. Intimate the parties accordingly. (Dictated to the Stenographer, typed, corrected and then pronounced in the open Forum on 31-12-10) Sd/- Sri. Pampapathi, President, District Forum-Raichur. Sd/- Sri. Gururaj, Member, District Forum-Raichur. Sd/- Smt.Pratibha Rani Hiremath, Member. District Forum-Raichur.

JUDGEMENT By Sri. Pampapathi President:- This is a complaint filed by complainant Gulam Moin against the LIC of India U/sec. 12 of Consumer Protection Act for to direct the opposites LIC of India to extend the pension with all other benefits arising out of his LIC Policy bearing No. 662062145 from 01-06-06 till payment, to pay compensation amount of Rs. 50,000/- with cost and other reliefs as prayed in this complaint. 2. The brief facts of the complainants case are that, he subscribed Policy bearing No. 662062145 from opposite No-2 while he was working as a Sherestedar in Munsiff & JMFC Court, Deodurga. It is Jeevan Suraksha Policy, he paid regular premiums to opposites by deducting the amount in his salalry. The complainant was about to retire on 30-06-06, as such he requested the opposite No-2 in the month of July-1997 to reduce the term of the policy from 122-10 to 122-9, so that the pension would commence with effect from 01-06-06. The opposite No-2 not issued original bond in respect of the said policy in spite of several requests made to it. After his retirement he approached the opposites to pay pension under the policy. But opposites not concerned his requests, accordingly this complaint was filed by him against the opposites for the reliefs as noted in his complaint. 3. The opposites LIC of India appeared in this case through its Advocate and filed written version by denying all the allegations made against it. The LIC of India Raichur Branch has not received any letters from the complainant to reduce the term of the policy from the term 122-10 to 122-9. The complainant being an official of the court, he was transferred from place to place, neither the complainant nor his officer furnished status of the policy regarding the periodical payment of the premiums etc., there was no deficiency in its service, even now it is ready to settle the claim as per the terms and conditions of the policy and as per calculation memo was filed by showing the amount for which the complainant is entitled for. Hence it prayed for to dismiss the complaint among other grounds. 4. In-view of the pleadings of the parties. Now the points that arise for our consideration and determination are that: 1. Whether the complainant proves that, he requested the opposite No-2s Manager in the month of July-1997 to reduce the term of the policy from 01-22-10 to 122-9 so that his pension would commence with effect from 01-06-06 as he was retired from his service on 30-06-06, but opposite LIC of India not issued original bond on his requests event though but it received premium regularly from his officers, after retirement he requested the opposites to pay the pension amount, but opposites shown their negligence in making payment with one or the other reasons and thereby opposites found guilty under deficiency in its services.? 2. Whether complainant is entitled for the reliefs as prayed in his complaint.? 3. What order? 5. Our findings on the above points are as under:- (1) In the affirmative (2) As discussed in the body of this judgement and as noted in the final order. (3) In-view of the findings on Point Nos. 1 & 2, we proceed to pass the final order for the following : REASONS POINT NO.1 :- 6. To prove the facts involved in these two points, affidavit-evidence of the complainant was filed, he was noted as PW-1. The documents Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-7 are marked. On the other hand affidavit-evidence of Manager (L&HPF) of opposite was filed, he was noted as RW-1. Document Ex.R-1 is marked. 7. From the pleadings of the parties and their respective evidences, we have noticed some of the following disputed facts in between the parties are:- 1. Whether the complainant has not intimated to LIC of India regarding the clear status of the policy with regard to payment of periodical premiums etc, as complainant was transferred from place to place and thereby LIC of India was not able to make the payment. 2. Whether the opposite No-2 not received a letter from the complainant regarding reducing the terms of the policy from 122-10 to 1-22-9 for to issue original policy. 3. Memo of calculation filed by opposite No-2 dt. 21-10-10 by giving a liberty to complainant to opt any methods of for calculation as it is ready to make the payment. 8. Keeping in view of the above said disputed facts by LIC of India with regard to claim of the complainant. The document Ex.P-4 is a material document it is a letter addressed by the learned Civil Judge & JMFC Deodurga regarding the deduction of monthly premiums in the salary of the complainant and Ex.P-4(a) is detailed recovery statements from June-2005 to December-2005 and January 2006- to June-2006. Apart from it, complainants letter Ex.P-3, Ex.P-3(a) & Ex.P-4(1) clearly goes to show that, he requested the opposite authorities for to reduce the term of the policy from 122-10 to 122- 9. No documents forthcoming from the side of the opposite to discard these documents Ex.P-3, Ex.P-(a) and Ex.P-4(1), as such we are of the view that, the delay made by opposite to settle the claim of complainant is due to its negligence and not due to negligence of the complainant. Ex.R-1 is Duplicate Policy which is not coming to any help of the opposites. 9. Now the calculation memo filed by the opposite was objected by the complainant by filing his own memo in which certain allegations made against opposites. 10. We have taken note of all the facts and circumstances stated above and we are of the view that, the reasons mentioned in the written version and in the affidavit-evidence of RW-1 are not proper and sufficient to make delay in payment of the pension amount to the complainant, as such we have rejected the submissions made by the learned advocate for opposite in this regard. It is a clear cut case of deficiency in service by LIC of India towards complainant, accordingly we answered Point No-1 in affirmative. 11. The first prayer of the complainant is to direct the opposite LIC of India to extend the payment and all other benefits arising out of his Policy No. 662062145 from the opposite from 01-06-06. In view of our reasons and finding on Point No-1, the complainant is entitled for to get pension along with all other benefits arising our of his Policy No. 662062145 from 0-06-06. from the opposite LIC of India. 12. A lumpsum amount of Rs. 3,000/- is granted to the complainant under the head of deficiency in service on the part of opposite LIC of India. Further complainant is entitled to get a lumpsum amount of Rs. 3,000/- towards cost of this litigation. He also entitled to get 9% interest on all the amount for which the complainant is entitled for from the date of this complaint till realization of the full amount, accordingly we answered Point No-2. POINT NO.3:- 13. In view of our findings on Point Nos-1 & 2, we proceed to pass the following order: ORDER The complaint filed by the complainant is partly allowed with cost. The complainant is entitled for to get the pension with other benefits arising out of his LIC Policy bearing No. 662062145. The complainant is also entitled to recover a total amount of RS. 6,000/- as noted while dealing with Point No-2, from the opposite LIC of India. The complainant is also entitled to recover future interest at the rate of 9% p.a. on the total amount for which he is entitled under the said policy from the opposite LIC of India. Opposite LIC of India is granted one month time to make the entire payment from the date of this judgment. Intimate the parties accordingly. (Dictated to the Stenographer, typed, corrected and then pronounced in the open Forum on 31-12-10) Sd/- Sri. Pampapathi, President, District Forum-Raichur. Sd/- Sri. Gururaj, Member, District Forum-Raichur. Sd/- Smt.Pratibha Rani Hiremath, Member. District Forum-Raichur.