Tamil Nadu

North Chennai

CC/117/2015

M/s.V.Ramalingam - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Branch Manager, LIC of India, 718 City Branch - Opp.Party(s)

M/s.Rajasekaran and Others

22 Mar 2018

ORDER

 

                                                            Complaint presented on:  09.07.2015

                                                                Order pronounced on:  22.03.2018

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, CHENNAI (NORTH)

    2^nd Floor, Frazer Bridge Road, V.O.C.Nagar, Park Town, Chennai-3

 

        PRESENT: THIRU.K.JAYABALAN, B.Sc., B.L.,        PRESIDENT

              THIRU. M.UYIRROLI KANNAN B.B.A., B.L.,      MEMBER - I

 

THURSDAY  THE 22^nd   DAY OF MARCH 2018

 

C.C.NO.117/2015

 

 

1.V.Ramalingam (Aged 58 Yrs),

S/o. R.Venkatappan,

 

2.R.Prema (Aged 54 Yrs),

W/o.V.Ramalingam,

(Both are husband and wife)

Residing at

No.F4, Sri Sakthi Vinayaka Flat,

New No.14, Pak Subramaniya Iyer Street,

Ambattur, Chennai – 600 054.

                                                                                    ….. Complainants

 

..Vs..

The Branch Manager,

LIC Of India, 718 City Branch,

XI, United India Building,

1^st Floor, No.8, Esplanade,

Chennai – 600 001.

.....Opposite Party

Date of complaint                                 : 04.08.2015

Counsel for Complainants                    : M/s. R.Rajasekaran, R.Bavanisekar,

                                                                    R.Kishore Kumar & A.Arunkumar

 

Counsel for Opposite Party                      : Mr.P.K.Ilavazhagan

 

 

O R D E R

 

BY PRESIDENT THIRU. K.JAYABALAN B.Sc., B.L.,

          This complaint is filed by the complainant to direct the opposite party to refund the said amount of Rs.2,576/- with 24% interest and compensation for mental agony with cost of the complaint. u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.1986.

1.THE COMPLAINT IN BRIEF:

          The complainants applied for LIC new endowment plan policies for the value of Rs.2,00,000/- in the name of 2^nd complainant and for the value of Rs.5,00,000/- in the name of 1^st complainant. The complainants paid the annual premium through cheque  to the opposite party.

          2. The opposite party did not issue policy certificates to the complainants. After reminding the opposite party they issued policy certificate only to the 2^nd complainant. Hence the complainants returned the certificate for rectification. In the mean time the opposite party, taking advantage of ECS system permitted by the complainants in the policy account of Mrs. Prema, the authorities deducted the policy amount on monthly basis on 07.03.2015 and 08.04.2015 an amount of Rs.1,288/- per month and totally Rs. 2,576/-. Such deduction is amount to deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. Hence the complainant issued notice to the opposite party to return the excess deducted amount and thereafter filed this complaint to direct the opposite party to refund the said amount of Rs.2,576/- with 24% interest and compensation for mental agony with cost of the complaint.    

3. WRITTEN VERSION OF THE  OPPOSITE PARTY IN BRIEF:

          The opposite party admits that the complainants availed policy from the opposite party. The mistake happened in the policy issued to the 2^nd complainant is an error and the same was corrected. After receipt of legal notice dated 07.06.2015 from the complainants to refund the premium amount of Rs.2,576/-, they addressed their city branch XI, Chennai for taking necessary steps. The deduction of amount under ECS was occurred due to clerical mistake at the time of data entry. After realizing the mistake the opposite party refunded the said amount by way of cheques on 07.07.2015. Hence the opposite party has not committed any deficiency in service and prays to dismiss the complaint with costs.

4. POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION:

          1. Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party?

          2. Whether the complainant is entitled to any relief? If so to what extent?

5. POINT NO :1 

           The admitted facts are that the complainants have availed LIC new endowment plan policies for the value of Rs. 2 lakhs and 5 lakhs respectively and also paid the 1^st annual premium through cheque and for the subsequent premiums they gave ESC systems from their joint account and the opposite parties also utilizing the ECS system a sum of Rs.1,288/- each (Total sum of Rs.2,576/-) on 07.03.2015 and 08.04.2015 from their joint account and for such deduction Ex.A4 bank statement is the proof for the same. 

          6. The complainant alleged deficiencies against the opposite parties is that the policy certificate issued to the 2^nd complainant has many errors and the same was returned for correction and further the deduction of sum of Rs.2,576/- utilizing the ECS permitted by the complainants, even though they have already paid premium for the year 2015.

          7. The opposite party admits in the written version about the error in the policy and also mistakenly deducted the said amount at the time of making data entry that it was keyed in as monthly ECS mode instead of annual ECS mode of payment. Hence for the said clerical mistake at the time of data entry cannot be termed as deficiency in service and the amount was also despatched to the complainant on 07.07.2015.

          8. The opposite party himself admits that at the time of making data entry, it was mistakenly entered as monthly ECS instead of annual ECS mode. The said amounts were deducted in the month of March and April 2015. Having realized their mistake, the opposite party ought to have refunded the said amount to the complainant. They did not refund. The opposite party received Ex.A1 legal notice received on 10.06.2015 to refund the amount and after one month only belatedly he had refunded the amount on 07.07.2015. The opposite party did not refund amount nearly for 4 months from the date of deduction is a clear case of deficiency on his part. Therefore we hold that the opposite party has committed deficiency in service in refunding the amount belatedly to the complainant.   

 

 

09. POINT NO:2

          The complainant admitted during arguments that the deducted amount of Rs.2,576/-  was refunded to him and hence in respect of that amount no order need to be passed. Due to the deficiency committed by the opposite party the complainant suffered with mental agony is accepted and for the same, considering the value of the refund amount, it would be appropriate to direct the opposite party to pay a sum of Rs. 3,000/- towards compensation would meet ends of justice. The complainant claimed a sum of Rs. 1,000/- towards cost of the complainant and accordingly the opposite party can be ordered to pay the said amount of Rs.1,000/- towards litigation expense to the complainant.

          In the result the Complaint is partly allowed. The Opposite Party is ordered to pay  a sum of Rs. 3,000/- (Rupees Three  thousand only) towards compensation for mental agony, besides a sum of Rs. 1,000/- (Rupees One thousand only)  towards litigation expenses.

The above amount shall be paid to the complainant within 6 weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of this order failing which the above said compensation amount shall carry 9% interest till the date of payment.

          Dictated to the Steno-Typist transcribed and typed by her corrected and pronounced by us on this 22^nd  day of March 2018.

 

MEMBER – I                                                                PRESIDENT

 

 

LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE COMPLAINANTS:

Ex.A1 dated 07.06.2015                   Legal Noti8ce

Ex.A2 dated 10.06.2015                   Acknowledgement Card

Ex.A3 dated NIL                     Policy Certificate

Ex.A4 dated NIL                     Bank Statement (Indian Bank)

LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE OPPOSITE PARTY :

 

Ex.B1 dated 02.02.2015                   Policy

 

 

 

 

MEMBER – I                                                               PRESIDENT