Orissa

Rayagada

CC/221/2016

Hari Gouda - Complainant(s)

Versus

Prasant Ku Routo LIC agent - Opp.Party(s)

Self

18 Jul 2018

ORDER

DISTRICT   CONSUMER  DISPUTES REDRESSAL    FORUM, RAYAGADA,

STATE:  ODISHA.

C.C. Case  No. 221 / 2016.                                           Date.    18     .     7  . 2018

P R E S E N T .

Dr. Aswini  Kumar Mohapatra,                       President.

Sri  GadadharaSahu,                                             Member.

Smt. Padmalaya  Mishra,                                     Member.

 

Sri Hari Gouda, S/O: Late Bikram  Gouda, AT:Maharaiguda, Po:Sankarada, PS:Tikiri,  Dist:Rayagada  (Odisha)                                      …. Complainant.

Versus.

1.Sri  Prasanta  Kumar Rout, @ Babula Rout, Agent of LIC,  Po/Dist:Rayagda.

2.The Branch  Manager, LIC  of India, Rayagada.

3.Sri  Sudarsan  Behera, News Agent, AT/Po:Tikiri, Dist:Rayagda     .…..Opp.Parties

Counsel for the parties:                         

For the complainant: - Self.

For the O.P. No.1:- Set Exparte.

For the O.P No.2   :- Sri K.Ch.G.S.Kumandan, Rayagada.

For the O.P. No.3:- In person.

 

JUDGEMENT

The  curx of the case is that  the above named complainant alleging deficiency in service  against  afore mentioned O.Ps for  non payment of death claim in policy No.57069027 for which  the complainant  sought for redressal of the grievances raised by the complainant. The brief facts of the case  has summarised here under.

On being noticed the O.P No.1 through their learned counsel appeared before the forum thereafter  neither entering in to appear before the forum nor filed their  written version though availing  of more than  16  adjournments. Complainant consequently filed his memo and prayed to set exparte of the O.P No.1.  Observing lapses of around two years  for which the objectives  of the legislature of the C.P. Act going to be destroyed to the prejudice of the interest of the complainant.  Hence after hearing from  the   complainant set the case  exparte against the O.P No.1. The action of the O.P No.1  is against the principles of  natural justice as envisaged  under section  13(2) (b)(ii) of the Act. Hence the O.P No.1  was  set exparte  as the statutory period  for filing of  written version was over to close the case with in the time frame permitted by the C.P. Act.    

 

On being noticed the O.P No.2  appeared through their learned counsel and filed written version refuting allegation made against them.  The O.P No.2 taking one and another pleas in the written version   sought to dismiss the complaint as it is not maintainable  under the C.P. Act, 1986. The facts which are not specifically admitted may be treated  as denial of the O.P No.2. Hence the O.P No.2  prays the forum to dismiss the case against  them  to meet the ends of justice.

The O.P. No. 3  in their reply  submitted that he was not working as agent under the L.I.C office,Rayagada. Hence the  O.P. No.3 prays  this forum be deleted  his name  from the above C.C. case for the best interest of justice.

  Heard arguments from the learned counsel for the    O.Ps  No. 2 and from the complainant.    Perused the record, documents, written version  filed by the parties. 

This forum  examined the entire material on record  and given  a thoughtful consideration  to the  arguments  advanced  before us by  the  parties touching the points both on the facts  as well as on  law.

                                                         FINDINGS.

Undisputedly the Policy No. 570969027  was issued  in the name of Late Sri  Bikram  Gouda  (D.L.A).   The   above  policy  was  commenced on Dt. 28.04.2005 under  Table  Term- 075/20  for a sum assured of Rs.65,000/- with yearly  mode of payment premium  Rs.5,186/-.  Renewal  premium  under the policy  for  04/2006   a sum of Rs. 5,186/- was paid.   The policy holder  died on Dt. 23.12.2008.

On perusal of the record this forum found  the  life assured was died on  23.12.2008 and the  complainant  nominee was filed the case on Dt. 01.08.2016 before  the  forum. 

The  O.Ps in their written version  mentioned that in the matter of cause of action  and jurisdiction the present proceeding is not maintainable in the present forum as such is liable to be dismissed.

            In the present case the    insurer Late  Sri  Bikram  Gouda  (D.L.A).   was nominated her son  the present complainant in his proposal form and the said proposal is duly accepted by the  O.Ps. It  is  clearly mentioned  in the policy that in the event of   death of the insurer the nominee is entitled  to get benefit.  Hence being the nominee in the said policy the complainant  is entitled to receive the  benefits and he is a consumer and the service  undertaken  by the O.Ps as per the above policy is for valuable  consideration attracting the  provisions of C.P. Act.  Hence the present proceeding is maintainable in this forum.

The remedy provided under the act  is, in addition to and not in derogation of the provisions of any other law for the time being in force. If a consumer approaches the redressal Forum  constituted under the Act and satisfies that a consumer disputes exists, the redressal  Forum  will have jurisdiction to decide the dispute and to grant the appropriate relief. A consumer who suffers loss on account of deficiency in rendering service may approach redressal forum constituted under the Act for  compensation. It is, therefore, well within the jurisdiction of a redressal Forum to entertain such complaint and to adjudicate upon a dispute  arising out of deficiency in service  relating to provisions of facilities   in connection with  insurance and to grant appropriate relief if such deficiency is proved.

This forum perused the premium receipt given by the Branch office, Rayagada. It appears that the deceased  had paid first premium of Rs.5,186/- and risk date covered from Dt.  28.04.2005 (Copies of the First premium receipt is in the file which is marked as Annexure-I) .  The deceased nominated the complainant as nominee under the policy. Another premium  for  Rs.5,186/- was  paid by the deceased   to the O.P. as second premium on Dt. 4.2.2006.  On perusal of the these 2 receipts it appers that the deceased paid the premium deposits in two installments. In turn the O.P. also issued bond in favour of the deceased, where  it is specifically mentioned that the policy  covered  from Dt.28.4.2005 as the date of proposal  and the date of commencement of the policy  was w.e.f.  Dt.28.4.2005.   On perusal of first premium receipt   this forum found that the  policy covered the risk from  Dt. 28.4.2005  till   28.4.2025.  These facts are not disputed by the O.P.

 

The O.P.  No.2 (LIC) in their written version para No.3 contended that the father of the complainant had  not  deposited the premium until 28.4.2009 through the agent in the  presence of Shyam Sundar Gouda, Kailash Sahu and Govinda Sahu.  As per the records of the Branch the complainants father (DLA) had paid two premiums one was on 28.4.2005 and another  on Dt. 4.2.2006 each  Rs. 5,186/-. Thereafter the D.L.A   did  not  paid any  premium.  It is not within the knowledge of the  O.P. that the D.L.A. had paid the premium amounts  to the agent and also the last premium. The O.P. No.2  (LIC)  did not received more then  two premiums. The L IC has no authorized any agent  to receive renewal premiums.  The complainant after the death of  Life assured alleging in the  complaint petition that the premiums have been paid through the agent. He  did not  complained before filing  the above complaint  petition  to the branch or any of the offices of the corporation.

            The O.P.  No.2 (LIC) in their written version para No.4 contended that the  complainant did not  intimated the death of  D.L.A. on Dt. 23.12.2008.   The complainant had never  ledged any death claim  of this policy  before the branch and there is no death claim before  the branch for the Ist. time it is known to the O.P. from the complaint petition  that the L.A. died on Dt. 23.12.2008 and also the premiums have been paid to the agent.  There is no document  or any  receipt  issued by the agent in token of payment of the premiums.   When the premiums have been paid to the agent it is the obligation  of the complainant to demand the receipts or enquire form the branch whether such premiums  have  been  deposited  to the  branch.  The complainant did not even reported   to the police against   the concern if the premium have not been deposited and misappropriated by the agent and bond  paper  had also not been  submitted to the branch. 

The O.P.  No.2 (LIC) in their written version para No.5 contended that the  O.P. No.2 LIC  has got no liability or any responsibility for the misappropriation of the money by  any person/agent.  The relevant policy  bearing No. 5709699027  has been  lapsed  and it  was not in live at the time of   death of the life assured. Since the policy has been lapsed the  complainant/nominee is not entitled for any death benefit  of the L.A.

On perusal of the record  this forum found  the complainant has not filed  any documentary evidence to substantiate  the payment of money  paid to the agent.   With out documentary evidence this forum  could  not  fixed  responsibility  on the  agent.

This Forum completely agreed with views taken in written version   and  the documents filed by the O.Ps in  the present case. Hence  this forum  feel the complainant is not entitled any  relief from this forum and   liable to be dismissed.

Thus,  it    becomes clear that even on merits, complainant is  not entitled to  any claim.

However  at  this stage this forum observed   the interest of justice  would met if  the O.P. No.2(LIC)  refund the  deposited premium amount in the above policy an  amount a sum of  Rs. 10,372/- by the deceased life assured  with  interest  @ Rs.9% per annum from the date of receipt till realization  to the complainant.

Hence  to  meet the  ends of justice, the following order is passed.                                                                                                      

                                               

ORDER.

            In  resultant    the complaint petition is allowed  in  part  on  contest against  the O.P No.2(LIC) and dismissed  against  the  O.P No..1 & 3.. 

The O.P. No. 2  (L.I.C.)  is ordered to refund  deposited  premiums in the above  policy an  amount a sum of  Rs.10,372/- inter alia interest @ Rs. 9%  per annum from the date  of respective deposit till realization.    Parties are left to bear their own cost.

The OPs     ordered to make compliance the aforesaid Order within  45 days from the  date of  receipt  of this order.      .

   Serve the copies of above order to the parties free of cost.

 

Dictated and corrected by me

Pronounced on this         18 ^th.   Day of     July,   2018.

 

Member.                                                             Member.                                                             President