D.o.F:25/11/2010

D.o.O:16/12/11

IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KASARAGOD

                                      CC.247/10

                   Dated this, the 16th   day of  December 2011.

PRESENT

SRI.K.T.SIDHIQ                          : PRESIDENT

SMT.P.RAMADEVI                      : MEMBER

SMT.BEENA.K.G.                          : MEMBER

Radha.K.A, W/o Dr.P.Ramakrishnan,

Sri Hari ,NadakkaVU, Trikarpur Po,                             : Complainant

Kasaragod.

(Adv.P.Venugopalan,Hosdurg)

1.The Branch Manager,

LIC of India, Branch Office,

New Happy Shopping Complex,                                   : Opposite parties

Market Road, Nileshwar

2. The Regional Manager, Divisional Office,

LIC of India, PB.NO.177, Huzur Road, Kozhikode.

(Adv.P.V.Jayarajan,Kasaragod)

                                                     ORDER

SMT.P.RAMADEVI : MEMBER

       The facts of the complainant in brief are as follows:

     The complainant deposited an amount of  `50,000/- on 30/3/2005 with the opposite party under the Future plus plan and the payment is made through the  agent  Mr.N.V.Ramakrishnan  and obtained  proposal deposit receipt dt 30/3/05 but  he has not received LIC’s future plus bond at the time of deposit.  After repeated requests the opposite party issued bond dt.24/12/2005.  In the bond the  date of deposit is shown as 24/12/2005 instead of 30/3/2005 and the  amount is shown as ` 52,000/-.  The complainant enquired the above facts  and Ist opposite party told that `2000/- is being the enhanced  rate in the share value.  According to the complainant `2000/- shown as the  enhanced amount from 30/3/2005 to 24/12/2005 was not correct.  Though the complainant has deposited on 30/3/2005 due to the negligence  in the date  was wrongly entered as 24/12/2005.  The  complainant’s husband  also deposited an amount of `1,00,000/- in the aforesaid scheme on 30/3/2005 and he received the Future plan bond within 15 days  of payment and the maturity  value is `2,13,393/-.  So  also the maturity value of the complainant’s deposit will be  `1,06,000/-.  But due to the negligent  act of the  opposite parties the maturity value of future plus bond is reduced to `93,000/-.  The complainant has suffered pecuniary loss of  `13,000/-.  Hence  the complaint is filed for necessary relief.

2.    Version filed  by the opposite parties  denied all the allegations made against them by the complainant.  The opposite parties submitted that the complainant has deposited `50,000/- as 30/3/2005 and the underwriting of proposal was centralized at  Divisional office Kozhikode and due to some  technical problems the opposite parties could not complete the proposal to policy.  Hence the opposite party discussed the issue with the complainant’s husband Dr. P.Ramakrishnan who is the panel doctor of LIC and the opposite parties given 2666/- as interest  consented by the  complainant’s husband ` 2000/- utilized towards the policy and `666/- refunded the complainant in December 2005 itself.  Then the opposite parties issued future plus (unit linked plan) policy for an amount of  `52,000/-.  The opposite parties further submits  that  complainant’s husband deposited `1,00,000/-   on 20/3/2010  and the policy surrendered for  `2,13,391/-.  According to opposite party the complainant sent a letter dt.8/4/2010 to the   opposite parties asking that the amount due under the policy is less than her husband’s policy.  The date of  vesting of complainant’s policy was 24/12/2010.  Since it is a unit  linked policy, the fund value under the policy will change day by day according to Net Asset value as per the performance of the stock exchange.  According to opposite parties  that the fund value of the complainant’s policy for `52,000/-  as  vesting date 24/12/2010 was `1,05,849/- and not `93000/- as mentioned in the complaint.  Hence there is no deficiency in their service.

3.   The evidence in this case consists of Exts.A1 to A5 and Ext.B1 to B4.    No oral evidence is adduced by both  the parties.

4.  Now  the points arise for consideration are:

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

2. If so what is the  order as relief and costs?

5.  Here the delay in depositing the amount of the complainant with the  future plus policy is admitted by the opposite parties.  According to them the delay is caused  due to some technical problems.  Even then the opposite party failed to  explain the delay properly.  If the delay is caused some technical problems why should the complainant suffer the damages.  The delay caused itself is the deficiency in service  and the opposite parties are liable to compensate  the complainant.  Here the question is what is the quantum of pecuniary  damage sustained by the complainant by the delayed payment made of the  opposite parties.  According to the complainant if the  amount of  `50,000/- deposited in future plus  bond on 30/3/2006  definitely she would get an amount of  `1,06,000/- on 30/3/2010 as proportionate  to her husband’s deposit.  The opposite parties could have vey well produce the  document showing that what  is the maturity amount  on 30/3/2010.  But they failed  to  produce any document showing  that what would be  the maturity amount on 30/3/20210.  Hence the contention  of  the  complainant  will prevail.  The opposite parties  produced Ext.B1 showing the maturity value of  the complainant’s policy as `1,05,849/-.  Here the question is whether the complainant sustained any pecuniary damages?   If the amount was deposited in time the complainant would get `1,06,000/- on 30/3/2010.  There is a delay of about 9 months.    If the complainant deposited the  said amount of ` 1,06,000/- she will get interest.  That interest is lost due to the negligent act of the opposite parties.  So the complainant sustained pecuniary damages.    Hence we are of the  opinion  that she is entitled to get 9 months interest as stated above  minus the amount received by her.   Here the rate of interest is fixed as 12% per annum the complainant will get `9540/- for 9 months.  The maturity amount she entitled is `1,05,849/- plus `666/- the  interest portion which  the complainant received.  That means the pecuniary loss is `9025/-. (1,06,000+9540-1,05849+666)

   Therefore the complaint is allowed and the opposite parties are directed to pay `9025/- with interest @12% per annum from  the date of complaint  till payment and opposite parties are further directed to pay `3000/- towards the cost of the proceedings.  Time for  compliance is  30 days from the date of deposit till payment.

Exts:

A1-deposit receipt

A2-Policy schedule

A3- dt.8/4/10- letter issued by complainant to OP.2

A4-31/5/10- reply from OP

A5- acknowledgment

B1- unit particulars of policy

B2series- Account statements

B3,B3(a) & B3(b)- NAV statements

B4- copy of letter with  option form

MEMBER                                          MEMBER                          PREISDENT