Orissa

Rayagada

CC/27/2019

Sri M.Achyuta Ramayya - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

Self

30 Nov 2019

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

POST  /  DIST: Rayagada,  STATE:  ODISHA,12.10  Pin No. 765001.

                                                      ******************

C.C.case  No.       27         / 2019.                                    Date.  30      .11. 2019

P R E S E N T .

Dr. Aswini  Kumar  Mohapatra,                                     President

Sri Gadadhara  Sahu,                                                        Member.

Smt.Padmalaya  Mishra,.                                                Member

Sri M.Atchyuta Ramayya,  S/O: Late M.Sivaramayya, C/O: G.V.Mohan Rao, P.R.Petta, Jepore,   Dist: Koraput(Odisha).Cell No. 7656891247, 9348282483.                                                                                                                                                                                                               …..Complainant.

Versus.

1.The Branch Manager,  LIC of India, Rayagada.

2.The Asst. General Manager, LIC of India, Berhampur Division, Berhampur,Dist:Ganjam.                                                                                                 …Opposite parties.           

Counsel for the parties:                                 

For the complainant: - Self.

For the O.Ps:-  Sri  K.Ch.G.S.Kumandan, Advocate, Rayagada.

 

                                                JUDGEMENT.

The  crux of the case is that  the above named complainant alleging deficiency in service  against  afore mentioned O.Ps    for  non payment annuity pension amount a sum of Rs.4,554/- for the year 2018 and 2019 towards  LIC’S market plus  181 policy No. 571849950  for which  the complainant  sought for redressal of the grievances raised by the complainant.

Upon  Notice, the O.Ps  1 & 2   put in their appearance and filed  written version through their learned counsels in which  they refuting allegation made against them.  The O.Ps 1 & 2    taking one and another pleas in the written version   sought to dismiss the complaint as it is not maintainable  under the C.P. Act, 1986. The facts which are not specifically admitted may be treated  as denial of the O.Ps. 1 & 2 .   Hence the O.Ps  1 & 2   prays the forum to dismiss the case against  them  to meet the ends of justice.

Heard arguments from the learned counsels for the    O.P 1 & 2    and from the complainant.    Perused the record, documents, written version  filed by the parties. 

This forum  examined the entire material on record  and given  a thoughtful consideration  to the  arguments  advanced  before us by  the  parties touching the points both on the facts  as well as on  law.

                                                    FINDINGS.

Undisputedly  the complainant   was  a  LIC’s Market plus 181  policy holder  bearing policy No.  571849950  under O.Ps ( Copies of the policy bond  is in the file which is marked as Annexure-1 ).  Further there is no dispute  the complainant was receiving annuity pension  of Rs.4,554/- continuously in  every year  in the 1^st. week of April, 2013 to 2017 (copies of the  bank pass  book entered  the  amount  by the O.Ps which  are marked as Annexure-2 to 6).

The main grievance of the complainant is that he has not received the  annuity pension  a sum  Rs.4,554/-  for the year 2018 and 2019  inspite of repeated  contact to the  O.Ps . Hence this C.C. case filed by the complainant  before the forum and prays the forum direct the O.Ps  to pay  interest @ 18% per annum from 1.4.2018 till realization  inter alia  compensation.

It further appears that prior to filing   of complaint, the complainant had issued letter  Dt. 21.01.2019 to the O.P. No.1 and it was duly served on the O.P.(Copies of the letter   is in the file which is marked as Annexure-7 )   but they failed to furnish reply to the said   letter.  Hence it appears that the O.Ps  have been negligent and callous regarding the complaint of the complainant. So the complainant filed this C.C. case before the forum.

The  O.Ps  in their written version submitted that the annuity due on April, 2018 and April,2019 along with applicable interest for the delay in payment  and there was no loss or reduction in the  amount payable and more so the interest  as applicable for the delay period also released on Dt.30.5.2019 a sum of Rs.184/- and Dt.9.7.2019 a sum of Rs.499/- towards interest  and credited in the S.B account  of  the  complainant bearing account No.028301000010331  of  Indian Overseas Bank through NEFT.

The  complainant  in their written argument admitted the same . So there is no dispute receipt of annuity for the year 2018 and 2019 and interest  for delay period.

The  complainant during the course of hearing  prays the forum to pass order  for payment of compensation for the negligence on the part  of the O.Ps towards  non payment of  annuity for the year 2018, 2019 in due time.

In this connection  the learned  counsel  for the  O.Ps   relied  citations which are mentioned here under:-

It is held and reported in CPR- 2010 (3)  page  No. 327  the Hon’ble  State commission,  New  Delhi  where in observed    “Compensation is not a matter of right.”

Further  it is  held and reported   in  Current consumer case  2005  page No. 110 (SS) where in the Hon’ble  State commission, H.P., Shimala    observed  “No man  can take advantage of his own wrong”. 

This forum for better appriciation relied citations  which are putforth in the present in hand.

It is held and reported  in C.P.R. 2015(1) page No. 45 the Hon’ble State Commission,Uttarkhand where in observed “Where complainant has been awarded/received  interest, ther is no question of separate compensation”.

Again it is held and reported in C.P.R-2015 (1) Page No. 22 the Hon’ble State Commission, Raipur where in observed  “Interest & compenstion both can not be granted”.

Further it is held and reported in C.P.R.2015 (1) Page No. 658  the Hon’ble National Commission, New Delhi where in observed “ Award of compensation must be supported by  reason”.

Again it is held and reported in C.P.R. 2012(2) Page  No.  222  the Hon’ble State Commission, New Delhi where in observed  “There is no standard classified yardstick for award of compensation”.

Further it is hed and reported in CPR 2011 (2) page No. 282 the Hon’ble National Commision, New Delhi  where in observed  “Consumer forum can award compensation as deemed  proper, reasonable and not as per asking  of the complainant”.

Again it is held and reported in CPR 2011 (2) page  No. 268  the Hon’ble National  Commission, New Delhi  where  in observed “Amount of compensaion should be fair and respectable”.

 

In view of the fact that this forum under the Act can grant relief/compensation only in terms of the  provisions of Section 14(1)(d) of the Act in terms of the said  provision a consumer can be compensated  only for the  actual loss  sustained  by him on account of deficiency of service on the part of the  O.Ps.  The complainant has not substantiated his claim  for  compensation  after receipt of  interest   from the  O.Ps  towards  delay  payment of  annuity.   It is again  a settled  law that where interest  is awarded,  the compensation  is not  awarded  as interest  is awarded by way of compensation.

Interest   is awarded only when there is a term of contract  or there are such compelling equitable  reasons as enshrined  under section-34  of the C.P.C. Otherwise in terms of Section-14  of the C.P. Act, 1986 a consumer is entitled to an amount  as compensation for the loss or injury suffered  by him due  to  the  negligence on the part of the O.Ps.

In the present case in hand the complainant has already received  interest  from the  O.Ps  which  is also admitted in their written  argument  by the complainant. Hence the complainant  is not entitled  for further compensation  from the O.Ps.

This forum  see no merit in the written argument/submission filed by the  complainant.

The complainant  has  failed   to establish any negligence or  deficiency in service on the  part of the  O.Ps  to  get compensation amount. Further no evidence to show actual loss suffered by the complainant  could not establish his case.

In  the light of the above position, we find it difficult to fix any  responsibility on the O.Ps as the complainant has failed to establish   deficiency of service on its part by cogent  and convincing evidence.  Accordingly we hold that the complainant has failed to prove Deficiency  of service  on the part of the O.Ps  or that  the complainant is entitled to any  further  compensation  from the O.Ps  after receipt of interest  from the O.Ps.

Further it is settled  position of law that  cost and compensation can not be claimed on presumptive grounds. The complainant is not supported with single scrap of paper, establishing claim, and in such circumstances, the complaint is not entitled  further  compensation  from the O.Ps in the present case in hand.

Hence  to  meet the  ends of justice, the following order is passed.                                                                                                            ORDER.

Since  the  complainant has already  received  interest  by way of compensation on the pension annuity  due which has not been paid by the O.Ps after due date, no further   compensation is awarded.  Accordingly the case is closed.  The O.Ps are directed  to pay Rs.500/- towards  litigation  expenses to the complainant  within 60 days.

Service the  copies of the order to the parties as per rule. 

Dictated and corrected by me. Pronounced on this     30^th. ^.     day  of   November, 2019.

 

Member.                                                         Member.                                             President