Date of Filing:10-02-2016
Date of Order: 10-4-2019
BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM – I, HYDERABAD
P r e s e n t
HON’BLE Sri P.VIJENDER, B.Sc. L.L.B. PRESIDENT.
HON’BLE Smt. D.NIRMALA, B.Com., LLB., MEMBER
Wednesday, the 10th day of April, 2019
C.C.No.159 /2016
Between
Dandu Krishna Murthy Raju
S/o.D.Venkataraju
R/o.H.No.8-3-167/30
Flat No.201, Erragadda, Hyderabad -18 ……Complainant
And
The branch Manger of Max life,
Seventh floor, Astral heights,
Banjara hills, Hyderabad ….Opposite Party
Counsel for the complainant : Party in person
Counsel for the Opposite Party : Sri V.Nitesh
O R D E R
(By Sri P. Vijender, B.Sc., LL.B., President on behalf of the bench)
This complaint is preferred under Section 12 of C.P. Act of 1986 alleging that the opposite parties by not paying bonus payout for his two policies as sum assured caused deficiency of service hence a direction to pay the same with a compensation of Rs.10,000/- and cost of this complaint at Rs.5,000/-
- The complainant’s case in brief is that he purchased 3 policies from the opposite party company and their numbers are 1. 250559390, 2. 250559382 and 3. 250559358. The opposite party company paid special bonus for all the three policies basing on sum assured on figures during the financial year 2013 – 2014. For the policy No. 250559358 with Rs.5,00,000/- as sum assured at the time of issuance of policy bonus payout of Rs.33,813.46 was paid on 3-11-2015 by way of a cheque but the company neglected the bonus payout for the other two policies. A written representation was submitted by him with regard to this but there was no response.
The proportionate bonus payment based on sum assured for these two polices bearing No.250559390 and 250559382 on par with the other policy bearing No.250559358 and same has to be decided by the company itself. The policy as a special contract and since documents are maintained by the company itself what is sum assured is not indicated by the company to the complainant. The company unilaterally calculated the bonus payout for the policy bearing No. 250559390 at Rs.11,834.50 and for the policy bearing No.250559382 at Rs.25926.60. The opposite party shall pay bonus payout of Rs.37,761.10 which is the due with interest there on at 12% from 3-11-2005 for the policy No.250559358. Hence the present complaint.
- Opposite party in the written version denied the complainant’s stand. It is contended in the written version that the present complaint is devoid of cause of action and is not tenable in law and there is no deficiency of service on its part to the complainant . The complainant concealed the material facts relating to the policies purchased by him. The complainant in all has purchased three policies the first policy bearing No. 250559390 is dated 30-12-2004 with sum assured at Rs.1,75,000/- whereas the second policy bearing No.250559382 is dated 15-3-2005 having sum assured at Rs.3,83,377/-. The 3rd policy bearing No.250559358 is dated 30-11-2005 with sum assured as Rs.5,00,000//-. In respect of this last policy bearing No.250559358 the bonus amount was calculated outside the system and by an inadvertent error there was in correct calculation as such correct amount was not calculated hence bonus was not paid. But later when this fact was came to the knowledge of the company it has paid the correct payout at Rs.33,813.46 to the complainant on 30-10-2015 with a special bonus of Rs.6,384/-. In addition to it an interest at 8% P.A for the period commencing from the bonus declaration date till 31-10-2015 was also paid to the complainant. As far as other policies are concerned the sub-table was correct hence the issue being faced for the policy No.250559358 does not pertains to these policies. Since sub-table was correct for the other two policies the correct payouts were made and the amounts were paid to the complainant along with special bonus declared for an amount of Rs.4,596.90 and Rs.5,000/- respectively for these policies. As such there is no due amount to the complainant under any of these policies. If any claim of the complainant is pending the complainant can give breakups of the same with entire details and calculations explaining as to how he is entitled for bonus amount with evidence in the present complaint. The present complaint has been filed basing on assumptions and presumptions hence it is liable to be dismissed.
In the enquiry stage the complainant has filed his evidence affidavit reiterating the material facts narrated in the complaint and to support the same and he also got exhibited six (6) documents. Similarly for the Opposite Party evidence affidavit of its Sr.Manager Sri K.Chandrasekhar got filed and the substance of the same is in line with the defense taken in the written version and through him the opposite party got exhibited nine (9) documents. Opposite party alone filed written arguments and oral submissions were made for both sides.
On a consideration of material available on the record the following points have emerged for consideration .
- Whether the complainant could make out a case of deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party by not paying bonus payout for the two of the three policies purchased by him on different dates ?
- Whether the complainant is entitled for the amount claimed in the complaint?
- To what relief?
Point No.1: Though the complainant has not spelt out the dates of purchase of 3 different policies mentioned by him, the opposite party in detail has explained not only purchase of dates but also sum assured for each of the policies.
As per the version of the opposite party complainant purchased a policy No. 250559390 on 30-12-2004 for an assured amount of Rs.1,75,000/- whereas the second policy bearing No.250559382 was purchased on 15-3-2005 and sum assured amount of its Rs.3,87,377/-. The 3rd policy bearing No.250559358 was purchased on 30-11-2005 and sum assured amount was Rs.5,00,000/-. The stand of the complainant is for the 1st two policies bonus payout was not paid like for the 3rd policy bearing No.250559358. As rightly pointed out by the opposite party the complainant has not prepared any calculation or given any description in respect of other two policies to which he is claiming the bonus payout similarly paid to the 3rd policy purchased on 30-11-2005. It is the stand of the opposite party that bonus calculated on the policy bearing No.2505599358 outside the system and there was a mistake in calculating the bonus sub title and because of that correct amount payable for this policy could not be paid but later on when the issue was brought to its notice it has made correct calculation which comes to Rs.33,813.46 and same was paid on 30-10-2015 with a special bonus of Rs.6,384/- and in fact interest was also calculated at 8% P.a on the calculated bonus amount from the date of due till the date of payment. Taking this as a clue the complainant contending that as special bonus as per the 3rd policy purchased on 30-11-2005 the company has to be pay a similar bonus ratio for the 1st two policies purchased from the opposite party.
The opposite party specifically mentioned that for the policy bearing No.250559390 and 250559382 sub-table was correct hence proper calculation was made as a result of it IMU issue does not arise. As all the payout details and all the amount was paid to the complainant and special bonus was declared for the amount of Rs.4,596.90 and Rs.5,000/- respectively for these two policies which are correct as such there is no due of any bonus for these policies as claimed by the complainant. The opposite party further specifically asked the complainant to give breakups and details with calculations in support of his claim. In spite of it no attempt has been made by the complainant to give details of breakups with calculation for 1st two policies purchased from the opposite party. In his evidence affidavit. This goes to show that the claim of the complainant is purely basing on assumptions and presumptions and not as per the terms and conditions of the policies purchased.
The opposite party also specifically said that it has been making communications regularly with the complainant answering all the queries and made all the efforts to see that there is no deficiency of service on its part while dealing with the policies of the complainant. Despite that complainant has come up with this frivolous complaint without any valid basis. The complainant claim is purely hypothetical and not supported by terms and conditions of the policies or factual basis. Hence the point is answered against the complainant.
Point No.2: In view of the above findings in point No.1 the complainant is not entitled for any of the claim amount.
Point No.3: In the result, the complaint is dismissed. No order as to costs.
Dictated to steno, transcribed and typed by her, pronounced by us on this the 10th day of April , 2019
MEMBER PRESIDENT
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
Exs. filed on behalf of the Complainant:
Ex.A1 is legal notice dt.19-01-2016
Ex.A2 is Max life letter ddt.18-11-2015
Ex.A3 is copy of policy document of 250559390
Ex.A4 is copy of policy document of 250559382
Ex.A5 is copy of policy document of 250559358
Ex.A6 is Gmail dt.04-1-2016 with regard to settlement of issue
Exs. filed on behalf of the Opposite party:
Ex.B1 is authorization letter to the signatory dt.20-3-2015
Ex.B2 is board resolution dt.14-05-2014
Ex.B3 is copy of policy document of 250559390
Ex.B4 is copy of policy document of 250559382
Ex.B5 is copy of policy document of 250559358
Ex.B6 is letter communication to the complainant dt.18-11-2015
Ex.B7 is letter communication to the complainant dt.17-05-2016
Ex.B8 is letter communication to the complainant dt.17-05-2016
Ex.B9 is letter communication to the complainant dt.17-05-2016
MEMBER PRESIDENT
