Maharashtra

Pune

CC/13/548

Kailash Chandra Srivastava - Complainant(s)

Versus

Sr.Branch Manager L.I.C.of India - Opp.Party(s)

13 Jun 2014

ORDER

PUNE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL FORUM
PUNE
Shri V. P. Utpat, PRESIDENT
Shri M. N. Patankar, MEMBER
Smt. K. B. Kulkarni, MEMBER
 
Complaint Case No. CC/13/548
 
1. Kailash Chandra Srivastava
S/o Late Jwala Prasad Srivastava R/at.E-13,Chetan Co.Op.Hsg.Soct,,Aundh Road, Khadki,Pune–411 020
...........Complainant(s)
Versus
1. Sr.Branch Manager L.I.C.of India
951 Branch,University Road,Shivaji Nagar Pune - 411 016
............Opp.Party(s)
 
BEFORE: 
 HON'ABLE MR. V. P. UTPAT PRESIDENT
 HON'ABLE MR. M. N. Patankar MEMBER
 HON'ABLE MRS. Kshitija Kulkarni MEMBER
 
For the Complainant:
For the Opp. Party:
ORDER

Complainant present in person

Opponent through Lrd. Adv. Smt. Mane

Per : Mr. V. P. Utpat, President              Place   :  PUNE

 

                                        J U D G M E N T

                                          13/06/2014                                                                                                                            

          This complaint is filed by the consumer against the insurance company for deficiency in service under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.  The brief facts are as follows,

 

1]       The complainant is a resident of East Khadaki, Pune – 20.  Opponent is the Senior Branch Manager of Life Insurance Corporation of India, whose office is situated at Shivajinagar, Pune – 16.  The complainant had obtained insurance policy from the opponent on 12/09/1973.  As per the terms and conditions of the policy, the complainant had to pay monthly premium, that was to be deducted from his salary.  He had regularly paid premium from 12/09/1973 till April 1986.   Thereafter the complainant was transferred from Khadki to Dehradun.  He was always ready to pay the premium from the salary.  However, the employer has not deducted premium, as the policy was not transferred to that office.  The policy was matured on 12/09/2005, hence he approached to the opponent for getting benefit of the insurance policy i.e. bonus, dividend, interest as well as amount deposited by him i.e. Rs. 2101.06.  He has also claimed conveyance charges of Rs. 20,000/-, compensation of Rs. 50,000/- for mental and physical harassment as well as costs of the complaint.

 

2]      The opponent appeared before the Forum and resisted the complaint by filing written version.  It is the case of the opponent that the policy was wrongly transferred to Meerut and that was not returned by the said office, hence there is no deficiency in service on the part of LIC and the complainant himself did not pay premium as per the terms and conditions of the policy.    The opponent has prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.

 

3]      After scrutinizing the documentary evidence, which is produced before this Forum, hearing the arguments of both the counsels and considering pleadings, the following points arise for the determination of the Forum. The points, findings and the reasons thereon are as follows-

 

 

Sr.No.

   

            POINTS

 

FINDINGS

1.

Whether complainant has established that the opponent has caused deficiency in service?

In the affirmative

2.

What order?

Complaint is partly allowed.

  

REASONS    :-

 

4]      The undisputed facts of the present proceeding are that the complainant had obtained insurance policy and the maturity value of the said policy was Rs. 5,000/-.  He has produced duplicate policy before the Forum.  It is not in dispute that the complainant had regularly paid premium since 1973 till 1986, i.e. for 13 years.  It is the case of the complainant that he was always ready and willing to pay the premium and that premium was to be deducted from his salary.  However, the opponent had wrongly sent the policy to Meerut, instead of Dehradun, hence his premiums were not deducted.  It reveals from the record that the complainant is running from pillar to post for getting benefits of this policy since 2005 to 2014.  However, the opponent did not give any response to the complainant.  In such circumstances, the opponent is liable to pay adequate compensation as well as refund of policy amount and costs of the litigation.  In the result the Forum answers the points accordingly and pass the following order.

                        O R D E R

 

  1. The complaint is partly allowed.

 

  1. It is hereby declared that the opponent has caused deficiency in service.

 

  1. The opponent is directed to pay an amount of Rs. 2,102/- (Rs. Two Thousand One Hundred and Two only) to the complainant along with bonus, dividend and interest from April 1986 till realization within six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

 

  1. The opponent is further directed to pay an amount of Rs. 10,000/- (Rs. Ten Thousand only) to the complainant towards compensation for mental and physical harassment and costs of the litigation within six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

 

5.       Copies of this order be furnished to

the parties free of cost.

6.       Parties  are directed to collect the sets, which were provided for Members within one month from the date of order, otherwise those will be destroyed.  

 
 
[HON'ABLE MR. V. P. UTPAT]
PRESIDENT
 
[HON'ABLE MR. M. N. Patankar]
MEMBER
 
[HON'ABLE MRS. Kshitija Kulkarni]
MEMBER

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.