Present         (1)      Nisha Nath Ojha,   

                              District & Sessions Judge (Retd.)                                                                               President

                    (2)      Smt. Karishma Mandal,

                              Member

                    (3)      Anil Kumar Singh

                              Member

Date of Order : 17.07.2018

                    Anil Kumar Singh

1. In the instant case the Complainant has sought for following reliefs against the Opposite party:-

1. To direct the opposite parties to refund the premium amount of Rs. 58,904/-  along with 18% interest deposited with the opposite parties with proposal form.
2. To direct the opposite parties to pay Rs. 1,00,000/- as Compensation.
3. To direct the opposite parties to pay Rs. 40,000/- as litigation cost.

2. The facts of this case lies in a narrow compass which is as follows:-

The complainant has asserted that he was allotted work of construction namely “Sarmera to Hilsa Path” District – Nalanda, Bihar under the Pradhan Mantri Gramin Sadak Yojana. He had submitted a proposal for issuance of aforementioned work along with a cheque bearing no. 673324 issued in favour of opposite party no. 1 for premium amount of Rs. 58,904/- only. The cheque in question was encahsed by opposite party on 10.08.2007 which was confirmed by complainant by attaching copy of statement as will appear from annexure – 1.

The grievance of the complainant is that despite encashing the cheque amount referred above the opposite parties neither issued the policy nor refunded the cash amount.

The complainant thereafter repeatedly requested the opposite parties for redressal of his grievance and when his grievance was not redressed a legal notice was sent to opposite parties by the advocate of the complainant vide annexure – 2 but nothing happened.

On behalf of opposite party no. 1 and 2 written statement has been filed denying the allegation of the complainant and stating therein that there is no deficiency of service on behalf of opposite parties because the opposite parties have issued policy documents vide annexure – A.

No any rejoinder has been filed by the complainant of the written statement filed by opposite party no. 1 and 2 and hence we are bound to accept the fact stated in the written statement which has remained unchallenged by the complainant.

For the reason stated above we are of the opinion that as the policy documents vide annexure – A has been issued by opposite party no. 1 and 2. Hence, there is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties.

With the aforementioned observation this complaint stands dismissed but without cost.

                                   Member                                    Member (F)                              President