Karnataka

Bidar

CC/9/2014

RAMRAO S/O SAMBHAJI - Complainant(s)

Versus

THE BRANCH MANAGER LIC OF INDIA BRANCH BIDAR - Opp.Party(s)

G.S CHIKLINGE

28 Apr 2017

ORDER

 

::BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

AT BIDAR::

 

 

                                                                                                         C.C.No. 09/2014

 

                                                                                          Date of filing : 27/01/2014

 

                                                                                       Date of disposal : 28/04/2017

 

 

 P R E S E N T:        (1) Shri. Jagannath Prasad Udgata,

                                                                                         B.A., LL.B.,

                                                                                                       President.

    

                                   (2) Shri. Shankrappa (Halipurgi),

                                                                                 B.A.LL.B.,

                                                                                           Member.

 

                                   

 

                                               

COMPLAINANT/S:         Ramrao, S/o Sambhaji,

                                         Age: major, Occ: retired employee of

                                         Karanja Dam Canal,

                                          R/o village Nelwad,Tq.Bidar,

                                          Now residing at near Ram Mandir,Bidar.

                                  

 

                                                 

 

 

                                     ( By Shri. G. H. Chiklinge, Advocate )

 

 

                                                    VERSUS

 

OPPONENT/S   :-           1.  The Branch Manager,

                                               Life Insurance Corporation of India,

                                                Branch Office, Dist.Bidar.

                                                 

                                            

                                 

                                      2.  The Divisional Manager,

                                           Life Insurance Corporation of India,

                                              Division Office, Sath Kacheri road, Raichur.

 

                                      3.  The Branch Manager,

                                              Canara Bank, Main Branch, Bidar.

 

                              ( O.P. No. 1& 2 By Shri. Sanjay Kumar S.Patil Adv.)

                                ( O.P.No.3 By Shri. Madanrao Biradar, Adv.)

                                               

 

 

::   J U D G M E N T  ::

 

 

By Shri. Jagannath Prasad Udgata, President.

 

                    This complaint is filed by the above said complainants U/s.12 of the C.P.Act., 1986, against the O.Ps alleging  deficiency in service  on the part of O.Ps   The subject of the case is as under:

 

2.              The complainant was an employee as Mazdoor in Karanja Dam Canal and then as Watchman and he was retired from his service on superannuation.  The complainant while he was in service  had obtained LIC policies bearing nos. 662002745 for Rs. 20,000/- commencing from 28/03/1994 to be matured on 28/03/2003 and another policy no. 662019432 for assured sum of Rs. 10,000, commencing from 28/11/1194 and to be matured on 28/11/2004.  The said two policies matured during 2003 and 2004, however the complainant could not surrender the matured policies before the O.Ps Corporation for encashment, as himself and other members of his family were involved in a false murder case and they were all in judicial custody.  The complainant was later acquitted and released form judicial custody.  He approached the O.P.no.1 and submitted his claim by surrendering both the original policy bonds but, to his ut- most surprise the complainant was informed that  policies were already settled and maturity amount of Rs. 26,402/- and Rs. 11,201/ were already paid to one Ramrao in A/c no. C.A.-1004 vide cheque no. 21605 dated 31/03/2003 which was encashed on 25/06/2003 and cheque no. 525892 dated 08/12/2004 encashed on 09/12/2004.  The complainant did not receive the said cheques at any time, and he did not encash any such cheques.  The complainant many times made representations to the O.Ps Corporation to enquire about the alleged cheques issued in connection with his policies but, the O.Ps’ Corporation did not pay any response.

 

3.               The complainant further claims that when the original policy bonds were still with the complainant it could not be said that the complainant encashed the policies.  It appears that some fake person had played fraud with the O.Ps Corporation claiming the amount of the said policies of the complainant, and the O.Ps Corporation without confirming the identity of such person and without securing original policy bonds or indemnity bond from such fake person  had made payments to him. The act of the O.Ps Corporation in showing the issue of cheques in favour of fake person and denying the payment to the complainant being holder of original policy bonds amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps.  Hence the complainant filed this complaint before this Forum.  The complainant further claims that, he was all along in the judicial custody  being involved in a false murder case, and he was released from jail just before one year and therefore the complaint being filed on 27/01/2014 is well within the period of limitation  and the complaint prayed to this Forum the complaint may be allowed and the O.Ps be directed to pay the maturity value amounts of the two policies.

 

  4.           After receipt of Court notice the O.P no.1 to 3 have put up appearance through counsel of their choice, O.P.no.1 & 2 filed their written versions therein claiming that,  the complaint filed by the complainant is misconceived both in law and facts and it is not maintainable.  The O.P. Corporation does not dispute the content of para no.1 of the complaint to the effect that, the Life Assured Ramrao had obtained polices bearing no. 662002745 and 662019432 and averments made in para 2 to 9 of the complaint are false and baseless without any proper records, hence the complainant be put to strict proof of the same.  The O.P.no. has settled the maturity claim to the life assured Ramrao and the details are furnished below:

 

Sl.no	Policy No.	Cheque no.	Cheque Date	Amount	Paid in favour of L.A.	Encashed on
1	662002745	21605	31/03/2003	26,402	Ramrao s/o Sambaji	25/06/2003
3	662019432	525892	8/12/2004	11,201	Ramrao s/o Sambaji	09/12/2004

 

The payments were paid to the policy holder under policy no. 662002745 to life assured RamRao through  cheque no. 21605 on dt. 31/03/2003 for Rs. 26,402/- and same was encashed on 25/06/2003 and  another policy bearing no. 662019432  through vide cheque no 525892 on dt. 08/12/2004 for Rs. 11,201/- and the same were encashed on 08/12/2004 hence nothing is payable to policy holder under the above said policies.  The maturity claim paid files have been destroyed by the servicing Branch as per the rules governingdestruction of old records.  Hence the physical files are not available and the complainant is intentionally claiming the maturity claim amount for the second time by suppressing the receipt of the maturity claim amounts through Canara Bank, Bidar and alleging that the said amount were not received.   This act of the O.Ps corporation cannot be stated to be deficiency in service.  In reply to para no.3 and 4 of the complaint, the policy holder might have applied for settlement of maturity claim with a valid discharge forms sating that his two original policy bonds were misplaced.  Hence the documents required for waiving the original policy bonds including the indemnity bond might have been collected from the policyholder and payments were made through cheques.  As per the procedure of destruction of old records Cir. CP/CO/2000 dated 18/11/2000 gives guidelines for preservation and destruction of old records.  As per the Sl.no.2 (b) deals with this- As per this after 5 years from the close of financial year in which the amounts were paid/ payable or repudiated are to be destroyed.  The contention of para no.5,6,7 of the complaint are false and denied.  The Canara Bank, Bidar is maintaining records of his account holders and their photo and address and introducer name etc, therefore the Canara Bank Branch Bidar has made payment to the policyholder. i.e. the complainant herein on whose name the cheques were issued by O.P.no.1 and 2.  Hence the O.P. no.3 Canara Bank Branch of Bidar can only confirm to whom the payment was made.  Considering the above facts and circumstances of the case,  the complaint may be  dismissed with costs.

 

5.                   The O.P.No. 3 in his written version stating that, the contents of total petition are not correct, hence denied   and the matter concerning to encashment the amount, the complainant is not account holder of O.P.no.3.  The contents of para no.1 of the complaint is not known to the O.P.no.3 hence need no reply.  The contents of para no.2 of the complaint are correct to the extent of issue of cheque by LIC of India Branch Bidar, as per statement of LIC of India Account of             Rs. 26,402/- and Rs. 11,201/-.  As per  Bank’s records the complainant has presented the cheque for Rs. 11,201/- through his account with SBH, main Branch and the same cleared on 9/12/2004, like wise another cheque for Rs. 26,402/- alleged in the complaint the O.P.no.3 has no records for the same.  As per RBI guidelines old papers were of years’ 1989 to 2003 were destroyed.   Therefore the O.P.no.3 is not aware of the transaction of Rs. 26,402/- because the O.P.no.3 Bank does not maintain  any account of the complainant.   The contents of the para no.5 is not so  relevant, when the complainant has no any account with the O.P.no.3.  Hence he cannot say the Bank is unable to furnish the details.  Now as per records one cheque for Rs.11,201/- presented by the complainant through SBH main Branch Bidar, and another cheque and concerned records destroyed by the O.P.no.3 as per letter dated 09/02/2012 under the prevention of Money Lending Act,2002.   The contents of para no.6 to 10 are not known by the O.P.no.3, hence need no reply, because it is not concerned to the O.P.no.3 hence, the complaint may be dismissed with cost.

 

 

 

6.         Considering the rival contentions of the parties, the following points arise for our consideration:-

 

1. Does the complainant prove that, there has been a deficiency of service in the part of the Opponent?

 

2. What order ?

 

7.         Our answers to the points stated above are as follows:-

 

1. In the affirmative.

               2. As per the final order, for the following:

                                                                                                  

:: REASONS ::

 

8. Point No.1:-    The Complainant in furtherance of his averments interalia has filed the documents as Ex.P.1 and P.2 and copy of his claim to the L.I.C. vide Ex.P.3 dt. 24/06/2012.  The O.P. Corporation claims that, the proceeds of the policies were paid to the beneficiary Ramrao through their Bankers M/s Canara Bank which is evident from Ex.P.5, the Bank statement.

 

9.         The O.Ps No.1 and 2 are evasively submitting that, the recipient of  their alleged two cheques bg.nos. 21605, dt. 31/03/2003 and 525892 dt. 08/12/2004 might have applied for settlement of claim without surrendering the policies(s) claiming the same  to have been misplaced.  The L.I.C. but, is not categorical about any thing under the pretext that, the old records have been destroyed at their end.  We feel that, this sort of answers are inappropriate, improper and in- competent.  The L.I.C. still remains liable to the policy holder to satisfy his legal claims and answer the point in the affirmative.

 

10.            However, it would be open for the L.I.C. if thought proper to initiate appropriate proceeding against the imposter who has falsely received the proceeds of the policy.  We also propose not to award any compensation or costs in favour of the complainant for his complacency in not lodging the claim up to 24/06/2012 or any interest on the matured sum and hence we proceed to pass the following:-

 

:: ORDER ::

   

1.  The O.P.no.1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay the maturity amount of the two policies to the complainant amounting to Rs. 26,402/- and Rs. 11,201/- altogether a sum of Rs. 37,603/-
2.  The case against O.P.no.3 is dismissed.
3.  There would be no order as to compensation, costs or otherwise.
4. Four weeks time granted to comply this order.

 

( Typed to our dictation then corrected, signed by us and then pronounced in the open Forum on this 28^th  day of  April-2017 )

 

 

   Sri. Shankrappa H.                                             Sri. Jagannath Prasad                                  

Member.                                                                President.                                                                                            

 

Documents produced by the complainant

1. Ex.P.1-  L.I.C. policy no. 662002745 Original
2. Ex.P.2-  L.I.C. policy no. 662019432 Original
3. Ex.P.3-  Copy of applicationof Ramrao dt. 28/07/2012.
4. Ex.P.4- Copy of applicationof Krishna Biradar, dt. 30/03/2013 to Canara Bank.
5. Ex.P.5- Bank’s A/c statement pertaining to L.I.C A/c No. 1004.
6. Ex.P.6- Office copy of legal notice dt. 09/11/2013.
7. Ex.P.7-Reply of L.I.C. dt. 21/11/2013 to the above.  
8. Ex.P.8- Another letter of L.I.C. dt. 23/10/2013 to Advocate.
9. Ex.P.9- Intra office E-mail
10. Ex.P.10- Copy of judgement in sessions case no. 73/2007.

 

 Documents produced by the Opponent/s

 

              Nil  

 

 

 

Sri. Shankrappa H.,                                             Sri. Jagannath Prasad,                                  

       Member.                                                                   President.

                                                                          

         

mv.