Telangana

Mahbubnagar

CC/09/28

Smt.B.Jhansivani, W/o Krishnamurthy - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Branch Manager, LIC of India, Mahabubnagar and another - Opp.Party(s)

Sri C.Rajeev Kumar

30 Sep 2009

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM AT MAHABUBNAGAR

​                                                                           Wednesday, the 30^th day of September, 2009

                                                Present:-   Sri  T. Ashok Kumar, M.A., LL.B., I  Addl. Dist. & Sessions 

                                                                        Judge-cum-FAC President

          Sri P.Venkateshwar Rao, B.Com. LL.B., Member

               Smt. B.Vijaya Kumari, M.Sc. B.Ed., C.C.P., Member

                                                                                       C.C.NO. 28  Of   2009

Between:-

Smt. B. Jhansivani, W/o Krishna Murthy, Aged: 45 years, R/o H.No.1-7-51, Teachers Colony, Narayanpet town, Mahabubnagar District.                                                                                                                                                                             … Complainant

And  

1. The Branch Manager, L.I.C. of India, Branch Office at “Jeevan Jyothi “, D.No.1-6-17, Station Road, Mahabubnagar.

2. The Divisional Manager, L.I.C. of India, Divisional Office “Jeevan Prakash”  D.No.5-9-21, Secretariat Road, Saifabad, Hyderabad.

                                                                                                                                                                   … Opposite Parties

 This C.C. coming on before us for final hearing on 25-9-2009, in the presence of Sri C. Rajeev Kumar, Advocate, Mahabubnagar for the complainant and of Sri  Lakshmi Kantha Rao, Advocate, Mahabubnagar for the opposite parties and having stoodover for consideration till this day, this Forum delivered the following:

O R D E R

(Sri P. Venkateshwar Rao, Member)

1.        This is a complaint filed on behalf of the complainant under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 seeking a direction to the opposite parties to refund the difference amount of Rs.40,000/- together with interest @ 18% p.a. from 29.3.2005 till the date of payment and to pay Rs.25,000/- to the complainant towards compensation and also to pay Rs.5,000/- towards costs of the complaint.

2.      The brief facts of the complaint are that the complainant has paid Rs.50,000/- on 29.3.2005 towards single premium to OP-1 for obtaining 10 year Future Plus policy vide proposal No.9068, dt.31.3.2005.   The OP-2 issued policy bond bearing No.646821909, dt.25.4.2005 for the above transaction.   In the said policy the amount of premium was shown as Rs.10,000/- instead of 50,000/-.  The said irregularity was brought to the notice of OPs several times and lastly the complainant got issued legal notice also but there is no response from OPs.  The OPs rendered services in deficit and adopted unfair trade practice by issuing a policy with Rs.10,000/- instead of Rs.50,000/-.  The OPs are liable to return the amount of Rs.40,000/- together with interest thereon from the date of deposit till the payment and also Rs.25,000/- towards compensation for causing inconvenience and rendering deficit services and also Rs.5,000/- towards costs of the proceedings.

3.    The opposite parties filed counter stating that the records are not available to give proper reply and the concerned staff are instructed to search and they are in the same work.  Therefore immediately after tracing the concerned records, OPs will take appropriate action in this regard.  As such there is no willful negligence or deficiency of service on the part of OPs.  Hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed. 

4.  The complainant filed her affidavit and got marked Exs.A-1 to A-7.

5.  The OPs did not file their affidavit and no exhibits were marked on their    behalf.

6.  Heard the learned counsel for both the parties.

7.  The point which falls for consideration is whether the complainant is   entitled to the reliefs as prayed for?

8.    After reserving the matter for orders, the OPs voluntarily deposited Rs.53,671/- in the District Forum vide HDFC Bank Cheque bearing No.000636, dt.8.7.2009.  The learned counsel for OPs has submitted that there was a clerical mistake in sending the policy by mentioning wrong amount. As such the OPs are refunding the amount of Rs.40,000/- as prayed for by the complainant together with interest @ 8% p.a. from 31.3.2005 to 8.7.2009.

 

9.     We have gone through the said cheque and found that the OPs have calculated interest @ 8% p.a. from 31.3.2005 to 8.7.2009 i.e., 51 months 8 days.  The learned counsel for the complainant argued that the OPs are liable to pay interest @ 18% p.a. and also other amounts as prayed by the complainant.  In our opinion the claim of 18% p.a. interest is high and unjust.  The L.I.C. of India being a public institution the rate of interest @ 8% p.a. is quite just and reasonable to award.  Therefore we are of the considered opinion that the complainant is not entitled any further amount as interest.  Further the complainant has failed to file material to prove her sufferance and claim Rs.25,000/- towards compensation and damages.  As such in our opinion the complainant is not entitled for the said amount.    Moreover the Hon’ble N.C. in Laxmi Vikas Bank Ltd., Vs. P.R. Krishnan case reported in CPJ 1995 (1) P.43 held that “the conferment of a double benefit by awarding both interest as well as lumpsum compensation in our opinion is not justified in law”.   In the light of this decision we are of the opinion that the complainant is not entitled any lumpsum towards compensation as the OPs already refunded her amount together with reasonable interest.   However we are of the considered opinion that the OPs responded and refunded the amount only after filing the complaint before this Forum.    Therefore the OPs are liable to pay costs of the proceedings.   In our view Rs.1,500/- is reasonable amount to award as costs because the complainant has filed complaint by engaging Advocate and paying court fee and also legal notice charges to his counsel.          

10.  In the result, the complaint is allowed partly directing the OPs to pay Rs.1,500/- towards costs of the proceedings to the complainant within one month from the date of receipt of this order.  The rest of the claims are disallowed.   

         Typed to dictation, corrected and pronounced by us in the open Forum on this the 30^th day of September, 2009.           

 

     MEMBER                            MEMBER                   PRESIDENT (FAC)     

        

Appendix of evidence

       Witness examined

 

For complainant: Nil                                                 For opposite parties:  Nil

Exhibits marked for Complainant:-

Ex.A-1:        Policy Receipt, dt.29.3.2005.

Ex.A-2:        Policy Bond issued by OP-2.

Ex.A-3:        Xerox copy of letter to OP-2, dt.13.10.2006.

Ex.A-4:        Xerox copy of letter issued by the complainant, dt.19.9.2007.

Ex.A-5:        Legal Notice, dt.24.3.2008.

Ex.A-6:        Courier Receipt, dt.25.3.2008.

Ex.A-7:        Courier Receipt, dt.25.3.2008.

Exhibits marked for OPs:-

    - Nil-

                                                                                                                     

By the Forum:

       - Nil-

                                                                                                                                                                                                                   PRESIDENT (FAC)

 

Copy to:-

1. Sri C. Rajeev Kumar, Advocate, Mahabubnagar for the complainant.
2. Sri  Lakshmi Kantha Rao, Advocate, Mahabubnagar for the opposite parties.