By. Sri.Ananthakrishnan. P. S, President:
This is a complaint filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
2. The Complainant’s case in brief is as follows:-
The Complainant had taken an insurance policy from second Opposite Party through first Opposite Party with policy No.796134890. The monthly premium amount for this policy was Rs.200/-. It was informed by second Opposite Party that first Opposite Party is their authorized agent and she is authorised to join policy holders and to collect premium from them. Hence, the Complainant has given Rs.10,000/- towards the premium amount to the first Opposite Party. The first Opposite Party acknowledged the receipt of amount in the passbook issued by the second Opposite Party. Due to financial crisis, the Complainant thereafter forced to stop the payment of premium amount and approached the second Opposite Party to get back the amount paid by him. But, second Opposite Party returned only Rs.3625/-. When enquired, the second Opposite Party told that a sum of Rs.5,000/- was only remitted in said policy by the first Opposite Party. Therefore, it is revealed that the first Opposite Party misappropriated the amount received from the Complainant and used the money for her own purpose. Thus, she cheated the Complainant. When contacted, the first Opposite Party informed that she had made a mistake and due to some urgency, she had misappropriated the amount and she will give the amount within 2 weeks. Therefore, the Complainant waited for a while. But, the first Opposite Party got extension of the time. Till date, she has not paid the amount as agreed. Therefore, the Complainant confirmed that the first Opposite Party misappropriated Rs.5,000/-. Hence this complaint, to get jointly and severally the balance of Rs.5,000/-, Rs.15,000/- towards compensation and cost of this complaint from the Opposite Parties.
3. First Opposite Party appeared and filed version which in short is as follows:-
She is an M I agent of second Opposite Party and authorised to collect insurance premium under the micro insurance scheme of L I C of India. The Complainant joined in micro insurance scheme of second Opposite Party promising to pay Rs.200/- per month as premium amount. But the premium payment was not regular and he remitted the amount in lump sum for 6 or 7 months. As a MI agent of L I C, she had received Rs.10,400/- from the Complainant and in order to remit it to L I C, she remitted this amount as and when received from the Complainant to Janasree, Wayanad District Committee who is an authorised agent of L I C. But the Janasree Wayanad had only paid Rs.5,600/- to the second Opposite Party and balance amount of Rs.4,800/- is with them. So this Opposite Party has not misappropriated anything from this amount as alleged by the Complainant. This Opposite Party is ready to obtain the amount from Janasree Wayanad and also ready to pay it to the Complainant. The maturity period of policy is in the year 2021 and so, the Complainant lost Rs.1,975/-because of the premature closure of the policy. Therefore, there is no deficiency in the service of this Opposite Party. Hence the complaint is to be dismissed.
4. The second Opposite Party filed version which in short is as follows:
The Complainant joined in micro insurance jeevan madhur policy bearing No.796134890 with them from 28.11.2009. As per their authorization, the first Opposite Party used to collect the premium amount from the Complainant @ Rs.200/- per month. The above micro insurance policy was secured by Micro Agent Janasree Mananthavady, a NGO appointed by LIC. Micro Agent Janasree Mananthavady and first Opposite Party are answerable if, the premium collected by first Opposite Party has not been remitted in L I C. This Opposite Party has received Rs.5,600/- only from the Janasree Mananthavady. When the Complainant approached to close the policy, only paid up value multiplied by the surrender value factor was considered within the terms and conditions of the policy. Thus, Opposite Party has only given Rs.3,625/- to the Complainant. So, there is no deficiency in their service. Thus, this Opposite Party is not liable for any loss to the Complainant and compliant is to be dismissed.
5. Originally there were only two Opposite Parties. But, during the pendency of this complaint, the Complainant impleaded Janasree Mananthavady as third Opposite Party. Though they received notice from this Commission, they have not appeared before this Commission. So they were declared as ex-parte.
6. On the above pleadings, the points to be considered here are
- Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of Opposite Parties?
- Reliefs and costs.
7. The evidence in this case consists of oral testimony of PW1, OPW1, Ext.A1, A2, Ext.B1 and B1(a). There is no oral evidence from Opposite Parties. Both sides heard.
8. Point No.1:- Admittedly the Complainant had joined in Micro Insurance policy bearing No.796434890 with the second Opposite Party and he used to pay the instalment amount @ Rs200/- per month to the first Opposite Party who is the agent of LIC. He alleged that he paid Rs.10,000/- and due to financial problem he stopped the payment of premium. According to him, thereafter he approached L I C, second Opposite Party to get back the premium paid and second Opposite Party had given only Rs.3,625/- stating that they have received only Rs.5,000/- as premium from the Complainant and since it is a premature closure, they only paid Rs.3,625/-. On the other hand the first Opposite Party who admittedly collected Rs.10,400/- from the Complainant submitted that she has paid the entire amount to the third Opposite Party and third Opposite Party paid only Rs.5,000/- to the LIC and the balance amount is with them. The case of the second Opposite Party is that they have received only Rs.5,000/- and after deducting fine for premature closure, they have given Rs.3,625/- to the Complainant and they are not responsible for the balance amount. Since, the third Opposite Party is ex-parte, they have not put forth any case to rebut the case of Complainant or first or second Opposite Party.
9. PW1 is the Complainant. He deposed that he is entitled to get Rs.5,000/- and also entitled for compensation with cost from all the Opposite Parties. The first Opposite Party has given evidence as OPW1. Ext.A1 is the pass book issued by the second Opposite Party. The purpose of it is to record the receipt of the payment from the Complainant. Ext.A2 is the statement obtained from the LIC by which it can be seen that LIC had only received Rs.5,600/-. Therefore Ext.A2 would go to show that the second Opposite Party is not responsible to give back Rs.5,000/- to the Complainant. The specific case of first Opposite Party is that she has remitted Rs.10,400/- to the third Opposite Party and they have failed to remit this amount to second Opposite Party. Even then, before her evidence as OPW1, she obtained a cheque with a covering letter from third Opposite Party. Those are Ext.B1 and Ext.B1(a). Ext.B1(a) would go to show that they have received Rs.10,400/- from the first Opposite Party and failed to remit Rs.5,000/- to second Opposite Party. So it is evident that there is deficiency of service on third Opposite Party and they are liable to pay the balance amount, compensation and litigation expenses to the Complainant. Thus the materials available here would go to show that there is no deficiency of service on first and second Opposite Party and they are not liable to pay any amount to the Complainant. It is evident that the third Opposite Party remitted Rs.5,600 to second Opposite Party and therefore the Complainant is only entitled to get Rs.4,800/- from the third Opposite Party. Since, Ext.B1 cheque has been produced before this Commission only on 29.07.2022, third Opposite Party is liable to give compensation with cost for the loss sustained to the Complainant. But, they are not responsible to pay the balance amount since they produced Ext.B1 cheque. Ext.B1 cheque is within time. So, the Complainant can get back this cheque. Complainant claimed Rs.15,000/- as compensation. But, it is an exorbitant amount. According to our opinion Rs.5,000/- is reasonable amount and therefore the third Opposite Party is liable to pay this amount to the Complainant. They are also responsible to give Rs.2,000/- to the Complainant towards litigation expenses. So, point No.1 is answered accordingly.
10.Point No.2:- Since Point No.1 is found as stated above, the Complainant is entitled to get the relief above said from the third Opposite Party.
In the result, the complaint is partly allowed and the third Opposite Party is directed to pay Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand Only) as compensation and Rs.2,000/-(Rupees two Thousand Only) as litigation expenses to the Complainant within 30 days from the date of receipt of this Order. The Complainant is entitled to get Ext.B1 from this Commission after the appeal period.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by him and corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Commission on this the 31st day of August 2022.
Date of Filing:-16.08.2018.
PRESIDENT :Sd/-
MEMBER :Sd/-
MEMBER :Sd/-
APPENDIX.
Witness for the complainant:-
PW1. Babykutty. RCC Fitter.
Witness for the Opposite Party:-
OPW1. Seena Mathew. Housewife.
Exhibits for the complainant:
A1. Pass Book.
A2. Statement for the period of 28.11.2009 to 16.04.20118.
Exhibits for the Opposite Party:-
B1. Cheque. Dt:29.07.2022.
B1(a). Covering Letter. Dt:29.07.2022.
PRESIDENT :Sd/-
MEMBER :Sd/-
MEMBER :Sd/-
/True Copy/
Sd/-
ASSISTANT REGISTRAR
CDRC, WAYANAD.
