ORDER

Date of order:   06-02-2017

Upendra Jha,Member       

                   This appeal is preferred against the order dated 10-03-2016 passed by the District Consumer Forum, Muzaffarpur in Complaint Case No.03 of 2007 by which the appellant is directed to pay the respondent a sum of Rs. 62,622.60/-(Rupees sixty two thousand, six hundred twenty two and sixty paisa only) with 8 % interest also Rs.20, 000/- by way of compensation and litigation cost within 30 days.

2.                Brief facts of this case is that the father of the complainant Jitendra Thakur had obtained a L.I.C. Policy through O.P.-N.K. Jha Agent. The Policy holder paid to the Agent Rs. 1, 02,061/-(Rupees one lacs and two thousand and sixty one only)  from 2002 to 2005 as premium but Rs.43,375/- ( Rupees forty three thousand and three hundred seventy five only) had only been virtually deposited to the L.I.C. as premium and the balance amount Rs. 58,685.60/- ( Rupees fifty  eight thousand, six hundred eighty five and sixty paisa only) was not  deposited to L.I.C. on 12-04-2005 a  dishonored cheque was received from the appellant –O.P. but the  father of the complainant had never deposited the premium by  cheque. When his father died, the complainant reminded the L.I.C. several times, but no action was taken. Then, the complainant filed a claim with complaint before the District Forum for payment of above amount. The O.Ps. contested the case. After hearing parties, the District Forum passed the impugned order against which this appeal is preferred. Appeal No. 54 of 2012 order dated 27-01-2015 by which this Commission had remanded this case for fresh hearing and for passing a reasoned order.

3.                           Respective written notes of arguments have been filed by the parties. Heard and perused the District Forum order.

4.                           The District Forum holding  deficiency in service on the part of the O.P.-appellant-L.I.C. for not refunding  the amount of premium not deposited by the Agent to the L.I.C. has allowed the claim and passed the impugned order.

5.                           The counsel for the appellant –L.I.C. submits that if the Agent had played fraud with the complainant’s father, the life assured is himself responsible for that. The appellant-L.I.C. is not responsible and liable for that fraud. Agents are not authorized to collect the L.I.C. premiums from the L.I.C. Policy holders. Citing the decisions of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Harshad J. Sah vs. L.I.C. of India reported in 1997 AIR SCW 2395 & 1997 iii CPJ 9 (SC), the appellant-L.I.C. prays to allow the appeal and to set aside the District Forum order.

6.                           The counsel for the respondent- complainant submits that his father took L.I.C. Policy through Agent and deposited total amount Rs. 1,02,061/-. When premium deposit details was obtained, it was found that out of  1,02,061/- the Agent had deposited Rs. 43,375.60 only to the  L.I.C. Due to non-deposit of premium, policies lapsed. In his writing the Agent gave a receipt, to get this amount Rs. 01, 02,061/-. But, the Agent never, returned this amount to the complainant’s father. On filing complaint, the District Forum passed the impugned order against which this appellant-L.I.C. filed appeal before this Commission. Appeal No. 54 of 2012 vide order dated 27-01-2015, the case was remanded to District Forum. The District Forum after hearing parties has again allowed the claim and has passed the impugned order which is proper and justified. It needs no interference. The appeal be dismissed.

7.                             Having considered the submissions of parties and on perusal of the order passed by the District Forum, it appears that the District Forum has considered the matter in correct perspective. In the District Forum as well as in this State Commission the O.P.-2-respondent Agent Navin Chandra Jha has not given his response. If there was any allegation against the Agent for committing fraud by the  Authorized Agent of L.I.C. the appellant-L.I.C. ought to had enquired the matter and if the allegation was proved, then action should had to be taken against the Agent. But, nothing has been done by the appellant-L.I.C. against the Agent Mr. Jha. It appears that there is connivance of L.I.C. Officials with the Agent. Mr. Jha. For their faults a consumer cannot be punished. We do not find any error or illegality in the District Forum order which is proper and justified. Hence, the District Forum order is affirmed and the appeal stands dismissed.

       S.K.Sinha                         Renu Sinha                  Upendra Jha                                                                      

      President                           Member (F)                   Member (M)