BEFORE THE DISTRICT FORUM (UNDER CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986), MEDAK AT SANGAREDDY
Present:Sri P.V.Subrahmanayma, B.A.B.L., PRESIDENT
Smt. Meena Ramanathan, B.Com., Lady Member
Sri G. Sreenivas Rao,M.Sc.,B.Ed.,LL.B.,PGADR (NALSAR),
Male Member
Monday, the 25th day of October 2010
CC. No. 27 of 2010
Between:
Smt. K. Laxminarsamma W/o K. Bhogaiah,
Age: 55 years, Occ: House Wife,
H.No. 5-95/6/G-Z, Padma Srinivas,
Chandanagar, Hyderabad- 50. … Complainant
And
The Branch Manager,
Life Insurance Corporation of India,
Br. Sangareddy, Dist. Medak ….Opposite party
This case came up for final hearing before us on 12.10.2010 in the presence of the complainant in person and Sri. M. Prabhakar Gupta, Advocate for opposite party, upon hearing the arguments of both sides, on perusing the record and having stood over for consideration till this day, this forum delivered the following
O R D E R
(Per Sri. P.V. Subrahmanyam, President)
This complaint is filed Under Section 12 of The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 to direct the opposite party to pay interest for 36 days for delay in payment of the amount in respect of policy No. 643012521 and to award Rs.25,000/- as damages.
The averments in the complaint in brief are as follows:
- The complainant is a resident of H.No. 5-95/6/C-2, Padmasri Nivas behind Nagarjuna High School, Chandanagar, Hyderabad. She is holder of policy No. 643012521 from 01.04.1995 for 15 years and paid premium regularly till the end and the policy is matured for payment on 01.04.2010. The complainant deposited the policy bond along with discharge certificate in the office of the opposite party on 11.02.2010. On 07.04.2010 the complainant requested the opposite party for payment of the policy amount. The opposite party promised to pay within 3 or 4 days together with interest. As there was delay, the complainant again submitted an application on 28.04.2010 and requested for making payment. There upon the opposite party sent a cheque for Rs.23,514/- vide cheque No. 108203, dated 21.04.2010 which was received by the complainant on 05.05.2010 and it took two days to credit that amount in her account. A delay of 36 days has been caused in making payment of the policy amount. Moreover Rs.23,514/- was paid without calculating interest from the date of expiry of the policy. The opposite party intentionally avoided to make payment immediately after the maturity and there by committed default and hence liable to pay interest on the amount for the 36 days delayed payment i.e. from 31.03.2010 to 07.05.2010. Therefore the complainant submitted an application by registered post on 12.05.2010 for payment of interest for 36 days for delayed payment. There was no response to it. Hence the complaint.
2. The claim is resisted by the opposite party by filing a counter to the following effect:
The complainant obtained policy No. 643012521 from the opposite party for Rs.20,000/- under T & T 14-15 with date of commencement of risk as 01.04.1995 and date of maturity as 01.04.2010. The maturity claim was settled vide cheque No. 018203, dated 21.04.2010 for Rs.23,514/- through EMS Speed Post on 24.04.2010. On 28.04.2010 the complainant submitted a letter regarding non receipt of cheque towards maturity claim and claimed in that letter interest for delay in payment of maturity claim from 01.04.2010 to the date of credit of the maturity claim amount into her account which is approximately seven days from the date of dispatch of maturity cheque. The complainant claimed interest from the date of maturity to the date of crediting the claim amount to her account which comes to approximately 30 days. As the payment of interest on maturity claim is not within the purview of the opposite party it was referred to higher office and after getting approval the opposite party paid interest on the maturity claim amount of Rs.23,514/- for one month at 8% p.a. though the cheque for maturity claim was dispatched on 24.04.2010. The complainant vide her letter dated 28.04.2010 requested the opposite party for interest for 30 days from the date of maturity i.e. from 01.04.2010 to the date of crediting the claim amount in her bank account which is approximately 7 days from the date of dispatch of the maturity claim cheque. Accordingly the opposite party has a sent a cheque for Rs.157/- towards interest on maturity claim for 30 days. However the complainant again requested in her letter dated 12.05.2010 for payment of interest for 36 days, by which time the file was forwarded to higher office for consideration of payment of interest for 30 days. Even though the maturity claim was dispatched on 24.04.2010 with a delay of 24 days it was received by the complainant on 05.05.2010 due to postal delay. Inspite of it, the opposite party has paid interest for one month even though the delay in sending the cheque is 24 days only. The interest paid is at 8% p.a. which is much higher than the prevailing rate of bank interest. The complainant has refused the cover containing the cheque of Rs.157/- towards interest, which was sent to the complainant on 14.06.2010 before filing this complaint. After approval from the higher office the opposite party ready to pay interest for another six days also, but by that time the complaint is filed. This complaint is filed without accepting the interest. Now the opposite party is submitting the cheque for Rs.188/- towards interest for 36 days as prayed by the complainant. Due to heavy rush in the month of March, which is financial year closing for the opposite party which continued till the month of April 2010,there was delay in settlement of maturity claim. In view of the circumstances the opposite party is not liable to pay any amount to the policy holder / complainant and hence prayed to dismiss the complaint with costs.
3. Both parties filed their evidence affidavits to prove their respective contentions in their pleadings. Exs. A1 to A10 are marked on behalf of the complainant and Exs.B1 to B4 are marked on behalf of the opposite party. Written arguments of complainant filed. Opposite party’s advocate filed a memo adopting the counter affidavit as written arguments. Oral arguments of both sides heard. Perused the record.
4. Point for consideration is whether the complainant has proved deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party; if so whether she is entitled to compensation?
Point:
Most of the facts in the case are not in dispute. The undisputed facts are that the complainant has taken life insurance policy from the opposite party with effect from 01.04.1995 for 15 years and paid all the premiums regularly till the end and date of maturity of the policy is 01.04.2010. The complainant has deposited the original policy bond with the opposite party along with discharge certificate on 11.02.2010 itself i.e. more than 1 ½ month prior to the date of maturity. But as the maturity amount was not paid to her, the complainant requested the opposite party on 07.04.2010 for making payment and the opposite party promised to pay within 3 or 4 days and as the amount was not paid even there after the complainant submitted an application to the opposite party on 28.04.2010 with a request to make a payment.
According to the complainant on 05.05.2010 she received a cheque dated 21.04.2010 from the opposite party for Rs.23,514/- and it took two days to credit the cheque amount in her account. Opposite party admitted that they have sent the cheque dated 21.04.2010 under Exhibit:A10. But as seen from Ex.A10 it is a letter dated 20.04.2010 mentioning cheque amount as Rs.23,514/-. The speed post cover in which it was sent is fastened to it which shows that it was sent through EMS Speed Post on 24.04.2010. The opposite party has not denied that the cheque sent along with Ex.A10 was received by her on 05.05.2010 and it took two days time to credit that amount in her account.
The opposite party has also not denied receipt of the application dated 28.04.2010 submitted by the complainant. According to them as the complainant requested interest for 30 days and as the opposite party did not have discretion to pay interest for delayed payment, they sought instructions from their higher officer and then sent a cheque for Rs.157/- towards interest for 30 days @ 8% p.a.; but the complainant refused to receive the cover containing the cheque therefore it was returned.
The complainant’s husband filed an authorization on 23.07.2010 under SR. NO. 459/2010 given by the complainant authorizing him to represent in this case. During arguments the complainant’s husband has contended that post man has brought cover and he has revolted against the postman for the delay in making payment by the opposite party and did not receive the cover. During arguments he has admitted that because of delay in payment of interest by the opposite party, in a bit of anger, he has unreasonably cried out against the postman, though in fact the delay is with the opposite party but not with the postman.
The opposite party, after receiving back the cheque which is marked as Ex.B3, submitted another cheque in this forum dated 24.08.2010 for Rs.188/- towards interest for 36 days as claimed by the complainant and the complainant’s husband received that cheque from this forum on 12.10.2010 after the arguments over. Even though the said cheque was deposited in this forum, to his knowledge on 26.08.2010, he was declined to receive the cheque till the date of arguments.
Even though admittedly there is delay of 24 days in sending the maturity claim amount in respect of policy obtained by the complainant, as the opposite party paid interest on the maturity amount for the delay occasioned in making payment and as the complainant has refused to receive cheque which was sent by the opposite party towards interest, the complainant knocking the door of this forum without receiving that cheque cannot to be said to be fair. Inspite of it because the complainant was made to go round to the office of the opposite party for payment of maturity claim amount, ends of justice would be met if suitable compensation is awarded to her for the inconvenience caused by the opposite party, which amounts to deficiency in service. The point is answered accordingly in favour of the complainant.
5. In the result the complaint is allowed directing the opposite party to pay a sum of Rs.1,000/- to the complainant towards compensation within one month. In the circumstances both parties are directed to bear their own costs.
Typed to dictation, corrected and pronounced by us in the open forum this 25th day of October, 2010.
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
PRESIDENT LADY MEMBER MALE MEMBER
Copy to:
1)The Complainant Copy delivered to the Complainant/
2) The Opposite party Opp.Party On __________
3) spare copy
Dis.No. /2010, dt.
