No. 6/18.10.2011.

HON’BLE JUSTICE SRI PRABIR KUMAR SAMANTA, PRESIDENT.

Both sides are present through their Ld. Advocates.  This appeal is by the financial institution namely ICICI Prudential Life Insurance Company Ltd., against the judgement and order passed by the Malda District Forum in DF Case No. 41/2009 thereby allowing the complaint case on contest by the Appellant with cost of Rs.5,000/- and further direction upon the Appellant to provide to the Appellant the actual unit status along with statement of deposits to the Complainant within one month from the date of making of the said order along with the further order for payment of compensation of Rs.2,000/- to the Complainant.

Admittedly the Complainant obtained Smart-Kid New Unit Linked RP Policy from the O.P. – Appellant upon deposit of Rs.5,000/-.  For the said Policy a half-yearly premium was fixed at Rs.5,000/-.  While it is the case of the Complainant that a sum of Rs.10,000/- was paid by way of yearly premium to the said O.P. – Appellants in respect of the aforesaid unit linked Policy, O.P. – Appellant has denied payment of such premium.  In the evidence it has been proved that O.P. No. 3 namely Poulami Saha used to collect premiums from the subscribers for and on behalf of the O.P. – Appellant.  The said O.P. No. 3 has deposed in favour of the Complainant and further proved the deposit of yearly premium of Rs.10,000/- by her on behalf of the Complainant with the then Unit Manager of O.P. – Appellant at Malda Branch.  The Complainant – Respondent has further corroborated payment of such yearly premium of Rs.10,000/- upon production of the Receipt No. 42920789 dated 13.02.2008 which has been marked as Exhibit – 2 by the Forum below.  The O.P. – Appellant apart from making a mere statement that the said Exhibit – 2 is a forged one, has not been able to lead an iota of evidence to establish that the said Receipt is either forged or has been obtained collusively by the Complainant without making any payment of the aforesaid yearly premium.  In the absence of such evidence the said Receipt stands as documentary proof of payment of yearly premium by the Complainant.  We, therefore, do not find any illegality and/or irregularity in the impugned judgement.  The order of disposal of the complaint case as made by the District Forum is thus upheld.  The appeal is accordingly dismissed.