K.Margasakayam filed a consumer case on 10 Sep 2018 against The Branch Manager, LIC of India in the South Chennai Consumer Court. The case no is CC/272/2014 and the judgment uploaded on 23 Feb 2019.
Date of Filing : 30.04.2014
Date of Order : 10.09.2018
DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, CHENNAI (SOUTH)
@ 2ND Floor, Frazer Bridge Road, V.O.C. Nagar, Park Town, Chennai – 3.
PRESENT: THIRU. M. MONY, B.Sc., L.L.B, M.L. : PRESIDENT
TMT. K. AMALA, M.A., L.L.B. : MEMBER-I
C.C. No.272/2014
DATED THIS MONDAY THE 10TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2018
K. Margasakayam,
S/o. Mr. Kandasamy,
No.3/117, Dharmaraja Kovil Street,
Sheikkumanyam,
Porur Post,
Chennai – 600 116. .. Complainant.
..Versus..
1. The Branch Manager,
LIC of India,
City Branch VIII,
Claim Cell, No.559, Mount Road,
Teynampet,
Chennai – 600 018.
2. The Personnel Manager,
L & T Valves Limited,
Manapakkam,
Chennai – 600 089.
3. Mr. V.K. Vedagiri,
LIC Agent Code No.01727728,
No.2/131, Railway Station Road,
Vandalur,
Chennai – 600 048.
4. The Manager,
IPP Cell, LIC of India,
Central Office,
Anna Salai,
Chennai – 600 002. .. Opposite parties.
Counsel for complainant : M/s. S. Satish Rajan & others
Counsel for opposite parties 1 & 4 : Mr. Michael Marie Antony
Counsel for the 2nd opposite party : Mrs. D. Veda
Counsel for the 3rd opposite party : Exparte
ORDER
THIRU. M. MONY, PRESIDENT
This complaint has been filed by the complainant against the opposite parties under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 praying to pay the entire difference in amount of Rs.732/- with interest at the rate of 24% p.a. from April 2012 to till payment, to pay a sum of Rs.60,000/- towards compensation for physical strain and mental agony with cost of Rs.2,000/- to the complainant.
1. The averments of the complaint in brief are as follows:
The complainant availed the LIC Jeevandhara Pension Scheme vide Policy bearing No.S711574760 when the complainant was working with Audco India Limited which is now called as L & T Valves limited. The complainant retired from service on 31.10.2011 and is entitled for monthly pension of Rs.549.50. But the 1st opposite party paid a sum of Rs.519/- towards monthly pension and thereby, a shortage of Rs.30.50 per month caused for the past two years. Even after repeated requests and demands, the opposite parties has not come forward to settle the amount. Hence the complainant sent letter dated:09.01.2014 to the opposite parties. But the opposite parties has not come forward to settle the demands of the complainant. Hence the complaint is filed.
2. The brief averments in the written version filed by the opposite parties 1 & 4 is as follows:
The opposite parties 1 & 4 specifically deny each and every allegations made in the complaint and puts the complainant to strict proof of the same. The opposite parties 1 & 4 state that the complainant had taken a Jeevan Dhara Policy vide policy No.711574760 and the monthly pension mentioned in the policy was Rs.549.50/-. The insurance cover was granted subject to the terms and conditions of the policy. As per the policy, the complainant was due for pension from 23.03.2012. While escalating the records, the monthly premium of Rs.60/- was collected under the Salary Savings Scheme (SSS) and left out the single premium. As a result, the pension was escalated to the extent of Rs.519/- only instead of Rs.549.50. The opposite parties deny the allegation that the complainant had made repeated requests by various means to settle the shortage of pension paid to the complainant. It is submitted that even before the receipt of legal notice dated:09.01.2014 issued by the complainant, the opposite parties have escalated the case of the complainant along with requisite particulars for modification of pension amount to the higher authorities for approval. As such, the opposite parties have not committed any deficiency in service as alleged by the complainant. Therefore, the complaint is liable to be dismissed.
3. The brief averments in the written version filed by the 2nd opposite party is as follows:
The 2nd opposite party specifically denies each and every allegation made in the complaint and puts the complainant to strict proof of the same. The complainant had taken the LIC Jeevandhara Scheme from the 1st opposite party. This opposite party is not aware of the averment in paragraph No.4 of the complaint that the first opposite party is paying Rs.519/- to the complainant with a shortage of Rs.30.50 per month for the past two years. This opposite party is in no manner connected with the Scheme or the transaction or pension receivable by the complainant. The policy is in between the insurer and the insured, namely the 1st opposite party and the complainant. There is no agreement or contract between the complainant and this opposite party with reference to the payment of pension under the policy taken by the complainant. There is no cause of action against this opposite party. This opposite party is not liable to pay to the complainant any of the amounts claimed in the above complaint.
4. Inspite of receipt of notice, the 3rd opposite party has not chosen to appear before this Forum and the 3rd opposite party was set Exparte.
5. To prove the averments in the complaint, the complainant has filed proof affidavit as his evidence and documents Ex.A1 to Ex.A6 are marked. Proof affidavit of the opposite parties 1 & 4 filed and no documents filed and marked on the side of the opposite parties 1 & 4. Proof affidavit of the 2nd opposite party filed and no documents filed and marked on the side of the 2nd opposite party.
6. The points for consideration is:-
7. On point:-
The 3rd opposite party remained Exparte. Both the complainant, opposite parties 1, 2 & 4 filed their written arguments. Perused the records namely the complaint, written version, proof affidavits, documents etc. Admittedly, the complainant availed the LIC Jeevandhara Pension Scheme vide Policy bearing No.S711574760 as per Ex.A1; when the complainant was working with Audco India Limited which is now called as L & T Valves limited. The complainant retired from service on 31.10.2011 and is entitled for monthly pension of Rs.549.50. But the 1st opposite party paid a sum of Rs.519/- towards monthly pension and thereby, a shortage of Rs.30.50 per month caused for the past two years. Even after repeated requests and demands, the opposite parties has not come forward to settle the amount. Hence the complainant addressed a letter dated:09.01.2014 vide Ex.A2 to Ex.A5 and filed this case claiming shortage of amount with compensation.
8. The contention of the opposite parties 1, 2 & 4 is that the monthly pension mentioned in the policy was Rs.549.50/- as per Ex.A1. The insurance cover was granted subject to the terms and conditions of the policy. As per the policy, the complainant was due for pension from 23.03.2012. While escalating the records, the monthly premium of Rs.60/- was collected under the Salary Savings Scheme (SSS) and left out the single premium. As a result, the pension was escalated to the extent of Rs.519/- only instead of Rs.549.50. Now, the opposite party filed a Memo of calculation in detail and ready to settle the amount which reads as follows:
PART I
Monthly pension payable as per Policy No.711574760 - Rs.549.50
Monthly pension paid to the complainant /policy holder - Rs.519.00
__________
Difference in monthly pension - Rs. 30.50
_________
Therefore, difference in monthly pension payable from
23.04.2012 to 31.03.2016 (Rs.30.50 x 12 x 4 years) - Rs.1,464.00
Penal Interest @ 9% p.a. – Rs. 131.76
__________
Proposed Amount for compromise - Rs.1,595.76
__________
PART II
Thereafter, to regularize the monthly pension to the policy holder on payment of the difference amount in monthly pension till date along with interest @ 9% as per PART I for which, the complainant has not raised any objection proves deficiency in service. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case this Forum is of the considered view that the opposite parties shall pay a sum of Rs.1,596/- and regularize the monthly pension as per the policy and pay a compensation of Rs.10,000/- with cost of Rs.2,000/-.
In the result, this complaint is allowed in part. The opposite parties 1 to 4 are jointly and severally liable to pay a sum of Rs.1,596/- (Rupees One thousand five hundred and ninety six only) and regularize the monthly pension as per the policy and to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten thousand only) towards compensation for mental agony with cost of Rs.2,000/- (Rupees Two thousand only) to the complainant.
The aboveamounts shall be payablewithin six weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of this order, failing which, the said amounts shall carry interest at the rate of 9% p.a. to till the date of payment.
Dictated by the President to the Steno-typist, taken down, transcribed and computerized by her, corrected by the President and pronounced by us in the open Forum on this the 10th day of September 2018.
MEMBER –I PRESIDENT
COMPLAINANT SIDE DOCUMENTS:
Ex.A1 | 23.04.2012 | Copy of LIC Policy No.S711574760 |
Ex.A2 | 09.01.2014 | Copy of letter to Branch Manager, LIC of India, City Branch VIII |
Ex.A3 | 09.01.2014 | Copy of letter of L & T Valves Limited |
Ex.A4 |
| Copy of postal acknowledgements |
Ex.A5 | 09.01.2014 | Copy of letter to Manager, LIC of India, IPP Cell |
Ex.A6 |
| Copy of Bank Statement details |
OPPOSITE PARTIES 1 & 4 SIDE DOCUMENTS: NIL
2ND OPPOSITE PARTY SIDE DOCUMENTS: NIL
MEMBER –I PRESIDENT
Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes
Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.