Presented by Sri G.S. Pradhan, President . <br /> The case pertains to deficiency in service as envisaged under the provision of Consumer Protection Act-1986 and its brief fact is as follows:-<br /> <br /> The Petitioner was serving as a Revenue Inspector under the State Government of Orissa and has retired from his service on Dt.28/02/2006 while he was working at Titilagarh Tahasil of Bolangir district. During his service the Complainant has done a “Jeevan Dhara” Policy under the Opposite Parties vide Policy No. 590320521/88 and the monthly premium of Rs.103/-(Rupees one hundred three)only was being deducted from his salary every month up to February-2006. During his tenure of service he was also transferred from place to place. The Petitioner contend that, as per the scheme of “Jeevan Dhara” Policy, the Petitioner is entitled for pension amount from the Opposite Parties due since September-2006. But even after repeated request made by the Petitioner to the Opposite Parties, the Opposite Parties neglected to provide him his pension amount of the policy, which amounts to deficiency in service by the Opposite parties. For non-payment of the pension amount the petitioner suffered a lot in mentally as well as financially.<br /> <br /> The Petitioner claims a sum of Rs.15,500/-(Rupees fifteen thousand five hundred)only from September-2006 to March-2009 at the rate of Rs.500/-(Rupees five hundred)only per month, which he is entitled to get and a sum of Rs.1,20,000/-(Rupees one lac twenty thousand)only as compensation towards mental agony suffered by the Petitioner.<br /> <br /> In their joint version the Opposite Parties denied to have cause any deficiency in service to the Complainant so also denied all other allegation made against them. The Complainant is a “Jeevan Dhara” Policy holder bearing Policy No.590320521 and the premium was to be deducted from the monthly salary of the Complainant by the employer and the same was to be remitted to the Opposite Parties for necessary adjustment in the policy account of the policy holder as per the salary savings scheme agreement with the employer. In the instant case S.S.S. Premium stands adjusted up to and including 10/1988 i.e. only risk premium has been paid and the policy is in a lapsed condition. The Opposite Parties agree to the averment that he has not received any pension as per the policy condition. The Opposite Parties contends that during the service period, the life assured has worked in various places as Revenue Inspector and the premium against the said policy stands deducted from his salary regularly and remitted to Opposite Parties different offices but the change of place of posting was not communicated to the parent branch i.e. Bolangir as per the S.S.S. arrangement.<br /> <br /> Further the Opposite Parties contends that, the salary saving scheme premium have been remitted by the employer against wrong policy number to various branches of Opposite Parties's office and for that reason the policy amount of the Complainant could not be up dated. In the mean time the Opposite Parties have taken appropriate steps to up date the policy amount by collecting data from concerned branches to start the process of issuing pension cheques to the life assured under the above policy.<br /> <br /> The Opposite Parties prays for dismissal of the complaint with a direction to the Complainant to co-operate with the Opposite Parties in regularizing the matter at the earliest.<br /> <br /> We have gone through the pleadings of the parties, copy of documents available on record and also heard the argument advanced by the learned Advocate and find as follows:-<br /> <br /> The Complainant was serving under the state Govt. of Orissa as Revenue Inspector and during his service period, he has done a “Jeevan Dhara” Policy under the Opposite Parties bearing Policy No. 590320521/88 and as per the S.S.S. Policy the premium was being deducted from his salary is not disputed by the parties. It is also admitted by the Opposite Parties that the Complainant has not received any pension as per the policy condition. The Opposite Parties contend that during the service period the Complainant has worked in various places as Revenue Inspector and the premium against the said policy stands deducted from the salary regularly and remitted to Opposite Parties's different offices but the change in place of posting was not communicated to the Parent Branch i.e. Bolangir. On verification, the Opposite Parties came to know that the S.S.S. Premium have been remitted by the employer against wrong policy number. So it could not be up dated.<br /> <br /> The Opposite Parties has not adduced any evidence regarding remittance of premium amount by the employer against wrong policy number and also the pension amount to which the Complainant is entitle to get as per the S.S.S. Policy. There is no any evidence to show that, the Opposite Parties has informed either the Complainant or to his employer regarding non-remittance of the premium amount for the Complainant's policy.<br /> <br /> However it is admitted by the Opposite Parties that the premium amount has been deducted and remitted to the Opposite Parties's office regularly. The Complainant shall not suffer for the wrong done by others. The Complainant is entitled to get his legitimate due from the Opposite Parties. As the Opposite Parties have not stated the actual pension amount to which he is entitled to get from the Opposite Parties as per the policy, we can not disbelieve the calculation made by the Complainant.<br /> <br /> In the result, the complaint is allowed and ordered as follows:-<br /> <br /> The Opposite Parties are directed jointly and severally to make payment to the Complainant a sum of Rs.15,500/-(Rupees fifteen thousand five hundred)only for the period from September-2006 to March-2009 with 9%(nine percent) interest per annum and for the subsequent month and a sum of Rs. 5,000/-(Rupees five thousand)only compensation towards mental agony and cost of the case with in 45(forty five) days from the date of this Order failing which 18%(eighteen percent) interest per annum shall be charged on the total awarded amount till the date of actual payment.<br /> <br /> Complaint allowed accordingly.