Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and respondent in person.
2. This appeal is filed U/S-15 of erstwhile Consumer Protection Act, 1986(herein-after called the Act). Parties to this appeal shall be referred to with reference to their respective status before the learned District Forum.
3. The case of the complainant, in nutshell is that the complainant had purchased a LIC policy No.571604542 from OP No.1. Accordingly he got the money back policy. It is alleged inter-alia that the policy commenced on 28.03.2006 but she got the 2nd mobey back for Rs.6,000/- on 26.03.2014. Since, she did not get 1st money back of Rs.6,000/- she approached the Ops but the Ops reveals that they have already paid Rs.6000/- through her bank, but after use such she did not find out that Rs.6000/- paid to her. So she filed the complaint alleging deficiency in service on the part of the OP.
4. The OP N.1 & 2 filed written version admitting that the complainant had purchased the policy commencing from 28.03.2006 for sum assured of Rs.40,000/-. It is further averred that they have released 1st money back for Rs.6,000/- on 28.03.2010 and that was paid by way of account payee cheque bearing No.0774558 dtd.28.03.2010 in the name of complainant. Since, the cheque returned unserved, they have issued another account payee cheque No.806535 dtd.30.11.2010. That cheque was issued dtd.17.01.2011 by Regd.Post and Rs.6000/- was credited to the account of the respondent on 28.02.2011. So, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP.
5. After hearing both the parties, learned
District Forum passed the following order:-
Xxxxx xxxxxxxx xxxxxx
“In the result, the complainant’s case is allowed against OP N.1 & 2 and dismissed against OP No.3. The Opposite parties Nos. 1 & 2 are jointly and severally liable as such they are directed to pay the survival benefit due for 03/2010 under LIC Policy No.571604542 of Rs.6000/-(Rupees Six thousand) only alongwith 10 % interest from 27.03.2010 to the complainant and to pay Rs.10,000/-(Ten thousand) only towards compensation for mental agony alongwith Rs.2,000/- (Two thousand) only as cost of litigation to the complainant within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order, failing which all the dues shall be realized at the rate of 12 % interest per annum.”
6. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that learned District Forum erred in law by not considering the written version filed by them with proper perspectives. He further submitted that there is also entry of Rs.6000/- in the account of complainant in SBI,Aska on 27.02.2011. Learned District Forum ought to have considered such facts. However, he submitted that money being paid, there is no deficiency in service on their part. Learned District Forum has committed error in law by the fact and law involved in this case. Learned District Forum has committed error by allowing interest and compensation which is not the mandate of law.
7. Respondent appeared in person submitted that learned District Forum has understood the fact well and passed the order. She further submitted that Rs.6,000/- deposited on 27.02.2011 towards her salary received from her office. She further submitted that she has not got back the amount. Therefore, she submitted to confirm the impugned order by dismissing the appeal.
8. Considered the submission of learned counsel for the appellant and respondent in person, perused the DFR and impugned order.
9. It is admitted fact that the complainant is a policy holder under the OP for sum assured of Rs.40,000/- commencing from 28.03.2006. It is admitted fact that she has got the 2nd money back interest for Rs.6,000/-. It is also not in dispute that the complainant has not received the 1st money back policy for which she approached the OP. Learned counsel for the appellant has produced the necessary documents being presented before the learned District Forum. It is the case of the OP that they have sent the cheque at 1st instance but they did not received but they issued 2nd cheque to the account of the complainant. She produced the original statement of account where against 27.02.2011 there is Rs.6000/- credited to her account 30892037757 but said cheque was never issued by the OP because OP has taken plea that they have issued the cheque No.806535. Therefore, understanding the Xerox copy of the account by the OP does not reveals against dtd.27.02.2011. When the cheque does not received by OP about their cheque which was credited to the account. Learned District Forum has analyzed the case in detail.
10. In view of discussion made above, we are of the view that learned District Forum has rightly passed the order showing liability of OP.
11. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that it is settled in law that interest and compensation can not be awarded at a time. When woman is harassed for petty amount of Rs.6,000/- the argument of the concerned counsel for the appellant assumes less importance. However, we are aware that the interest and compensation can not be awarded at a time. In such circumstances, while confirming the impugned order, we hereby modified the operative portion of the impugned order and direct OP to pay Rs.6,000/- with 8 % interest from the date of impugned order till date of payment and at the same time the compensation for mental agony can not be ignored. Considering the plight of woman we award compensation of Rs.7,500/- to the complainant and all the amount would be payable on date of impugned order till date of payment. If all the ordered amount will not paid in time, 12 % will be charged from the date of impugned order till date of payment. The entire ordered amount should be complied within 45 days failing which carry interest @ 18 % per annum. Rest of the impugned order will remain unaltered.
Free copy of the order be supplied to the respective parties or they may download same from the confonet or webtsite of this Commission to treat same as copy of order received from this Commission.
DFR be sent back forthwith.
