Orissa

Rayagada

CC/156/2015

Sri L.M Patnaik - Complainant(s)

Versus

Sri Dilip Kumar Behere, LIC Agent - Opp.Party(s)

Self

27 Aug 2018

ORDER

DISTRICT   CONSUMER  DISPUTES REDRESSAL    FORUM, RAYAGADA,

STATE:  ODISHA.

C.C. Case  No. 156 / 2015.                                       Date.   27   . 8   . 2018.

P R E S E N T .

Dr. Aswini  Kumar Mohapatra,                          President

Sri Gadadhara Sahu,                                                                       Member.

Smt.Padmalaya Mishra,.                                                                Member

 

Sri L.M.Patnaik,  S/O: Late Dandapani Patnaik,  Advocate by profession,      AT:Raniguda farm, Rayagada.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     …….Complainant

Vrs.

1.Sri Dilip Kumar  Behera, S/O:  Bijaya Kumar Behera,  LIC agent,  DFO office road,  Raniguda Farm, Rayagada.

2. The Branch Manager, LIC of India, Rayagada.

3.Sri  Dilip Kumar Patnaik,  D.O. LIC, Rayagada  Branch, Rayagada.                                                                                                               .…..Opp.Parties

Counsel for the parties:                                 

For the complainant: - Self.

For the O.P No.1  :- Subhra  Panda, Advocate, Rayagada.

For the O. P. No.2:- Sri Sahadev Choudhury, Advocate, Rayagada.

For the O.P. 3:-  Set exparte.

                                                          J u d g e m e n t.

          The  present dispute arises out of the complaint petition filed by the above named complainant alleging deficiency in service  against  afore mentioned O.Ps to make up-to-date  deposits  in LIC policies bearing No.573888222 No. 573739194. The brief facts of the case  has summarised here under.

          That the complainant had opened  two Nos. of  LIC policy  bearing No. 573888222 in the name of  complainants minor son Sri Akhilesh Patnaik.  Another policy No. 573739194 which stands in the name of the complainant. The complainant complained in this petition that  the O.P. No.1 Sri Dilip Kumar Behera, Agent of LIC had  received Rs. 20,000/- during the month of January, 2015  for opening of new LIC policy and deposit of further  premium  in the above policies.  But the O.P. No.1 agent  had not deposited  the further premiums  of the above policies and the complainant had not received the money receipt towards deposit of premiums of the above policies and had not  opened new policy in the name of the complainant.  Hence this C.C. case against the O.Ps. The  complainant prays the forum direct the O.Ps to open a new policy  as proposed by the O.P. No.1  and direct the O.P. No.2 to stop commission and cancel the agentship of the   agent O.P. No.1 and such other relief as the hon’ble forum deems fit and proper for the best interest of justice.

           

On being noticed  the learned counsels for the O.P No. 1 & 2   filed written version  separately  inter alia  challenged  the maintainability of the  petition before the forum. The averments made in the  petition are  all false, and O.P No. 1 & 2    deny   each and every allegation made in the petition. The O.Ps No.1 & 2  taking one  & other grounds in the written version   sought to dismiss the complaint as it is not maintainable  under the C.P. Act, 1986.  The O.P. No.1 & 2     prays the forum to dismiss the complaint petition  for the best interest of justice.

 

On being noticed  the O.P No.3  neither entering in to appear before the forum nor filed their  written version inspite of more than 15 adjournments has been given  to them. Complainant consequently filed his memo and prayer to set exparte of the O.P No.3.  Observing lapses of around 3 years  for which the objectives  of the legislature of the C.P. Act going to be destroyed to the prejudice of the interest of the complainant.  Hence after hearing  from  the complainant set the case  exparte against the O.P No.3. The action of the O.P No. 3  is against the principles of  natural justice as envisaged  under section  13(2) (b)(ii) of the Act. Hence the O.P.  No.3 set exparte  as the statutory period  for filing of  written version was over to close the case with in the time frame permitted by the C.P. Act.

The learned counsels for  O.P No.1 & 2  appeared and defend the case.  Heard arguments from the  learned counsels for  the  O.P No.1 & 2  and from the complainant.    Perused the record, documents,  written version filed by the parties. 

This forum  examined the entire material on record  and given  a thoughtful consideration  to the  arguments  advanced  before us by  the  parties touching the points both on the facts  as well as on  law                                           

                                                                          

]

                                                                             FINDINGS.

           

            From the records it reveals that, there is no dispute that the  complainant  is having  one policy No. 573739194 and another policy  No. 573888222 in his son’s name.

          The  O.P. No.1 (agent) in their written version  clearly mentioned that he had opened LIC policies in the name of the complainant  during the year 2012 and 2013 respectivley.  The  O.P. No.1(agent) further contended that he had  not collected any  instalments from the complainant  and needs  strict proof  by the complainant.

          The O.P. No.2 ( B.M., LIC) contended that  the averments of the transactions between the complainant  and  O.P. No.1 (agent)  and payment made by the complainant to the O.P. No.1  is not in the knowledge of the O.P. No.2  (LIC office).   The O.P. No.2  had never received any such amount  from such agent towards premium against the above cited policies or towards new proposal.  Hence the  O.P. No. 2 is neither liable nor in a position to stop commission of the agent unless there is a concrete  proof that the O.P. No.1 has received  premium from the complainant.

 

           

 

On perusal of the record  this forum found  the complainant has not filed  any documentary evidence to substantiate  the payment of money  paid to the agent i.e. O.P. No.1.   With out documentary evidence this forum  could  not  fixed  responsibility  on the  agent  O.P. No.1

This Forum completely agreed with views taken by the O.Ps  in their  written version   and  the documents filed by the O.Ps in  the present case. Hence  this forum  feel the complainant is not entitled any  relief from this forum and   liable to be dismissed.

Thus,  it    becomes clear that even on merits, complainant is  not entitled to  any claim.

Hence  to  meet the  ends of justice, the following order is passed.                                                                                                      

                                               

ORDER.

            In  resultant    the complaint petition stands dismissed against the  O.Ps.

   Serve the copies of above order to the parties free of cost.

 

Dictated and corrected by me

Pronounced on this        27^th.        Day of     August,   2018.

 

Member.                                                             Member.                                                             President