1. The brief facts of the case of the complainant are that he obtained two insurance policy bearing No.570741389 dt.28.1.2012 & No.570747659 dt.28.8.2004 under Salary Saving Scheme with monthly premium of Rs.198/- & Rs.395/- respectively issued by OP.1. It is submitted that the premiums were being deducted by OP.3 and deposited every month with OP.1 through the Treasury Officer, Koraput (OP.3) but unfortunately without any reason, the OP.3 remitted premiums from 10/2012 to OP.2 instead of OP.1. It is further submitted that the complainant approached all the Ops several times to undo the wrong but to no action. Thus alleging deficiency in service on the part of the Ops, he filed this case praying the Forum to direct the OP.2 to transfer the premiums to OP.1 and to further direct the Ops to pay Rs.50, 000/- in favour of the complainant towards compensation.
2. In spite of valid notice, the Ops 1, 3 & 4 did not prefer to participate in this proceeding in any manner. The OP No.2 only filed counter admitting the policies in favour of the complainant and the premiums and also further admitted that the premiums have mistakenly remitted by OP.3 to OP.2 instead of OP.1 from 10/2012 onwards. It is contended that out of 2 policies, the Policy No.570741389 was matured on 28.1.2017 i.e. after filing of the present case and the claim of Rs.33, 867/- has been settled in favour of the complainant on 28.1.2017. Regarding 2nd policy bearing No.570747659, the OP.2 contended that the premium amount has been received by OP.2 up to 3/2014 and no amount has been received thereafter and the said policy amount has been transferred to Koraput Branch (OP.1) on 27.2.2017. Thus denying any cause of action to file this case and also denying any fault on its part, the OP.2 prayed to dismiss the case of the complainant with costs.
3. Both the parties have filed certain documents in support of their cases. Heard from the OP.2 through its A/R and perused the materials available on record.
4. In the present case in hand, insurance policy bearing No.570741389 dt.28.1.2012 and No.570747859 dt.28.8.2004 under monthly SSS for premium of Rs.198/- and Rs.395/- respectively issued by OP.1 in favour of the complainant is an admitted fact. The OP.4 was deducting the premium from the salary and the premiums were being deposited with OP.1 through the OP.3. The case of the complainant is that from 10/2012, the OP.3 remitted the premiums in respect of both the policies to OP.2 instead of OP.1 for which he has made correspondences with all the Ops but without any result.
5. The OP No.2 submitted that after filing of this case by the complainant, the Policy No.570741389 got matured on 28.1.2017 and after receipt of discharge voucher from the complainant, the claim amount of Rs.33, 867/- has been settled on 28.1.17. Similarly, the OP.2 submitted that the Policy bearing No.570747659 of which premiums were received up to March-2014 and the said policy has been transferred to OP.1 on 27.02.2017. The copy of transfer letter is also filed by OP.2 along with payment details of Policy No.570741389.
6. From the above facts it was ascertained that the complainant’s grievance has been redressed by Ops 1 & 2 and the complainant is not suffering any pecuniary loss. It is seen that the grievance of the complainant was redressed only after filing of this case. Due to non adjustment of premiums, the complainant has written a letter on 24.7.2014 to the Divisional Manager, LIC of India, Berhampur and also to OP No.1. The copy of both the letters are available on record. The complainant also stated that he approached OP.1 several times at Koraput requesting adjustment of premiums but the OP.1 did not listen. At least, the complainant has filed this case and thereafter the Ops woke up and redressed the grievances of the complainant. Had the OP.1 redressed the grievances on the request of the complainant, the matter would have been different but the OP.1 did not do so. This inaction of OP.1 in our opinion amounts to deficiency in service for which the complainant has filed this case incurring some expenditure. Hence the complainant is entitled for cost of this litigation and we feel a sum of Rs.2000/- towards cost will meet the ends of justice.
7. Hence ordered that the complaint petition is allowed in part and the OP No.1 is directed to pay Rs.2000/- towards cost of litigation to the complainant within 30 days from the date of communication of this order.
(to dict.)
