BEFORE THE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION AT PUDUCHERRY
FRIDAY, 11th day of March, 2016
FIRST APPPEAL No. 8/2015
L.Sundararajan,
No.4, Anthoniar Koil Street,
Kumaraguru Nagar (behind Kandan Complex),
Puducherry. ……….. Appellant
Vs.
1. The Branch Manager,
Life Insurance Corporation (No.802),
No.4, Armenian Street,
Chennai – 600 001.
2. The Branch Manager,
Life Insurance Corporation,
Anna Salai, Puducherry.
3. The Divisional Manager,
Life Insurance Corporation,
Vellore.
4. The Assistant Commissioner,
Employees’ Provident Fund Office,
100 feet Road, Puducherry. ………….. Respondents
(On appeal against the order passed in C.C.No.30/2012, dt.07.04.2015 of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Puducherry)
C.C.No.30/2012
L.Sundararajan,
No.4, Anthoniar Koil Street,
Kumaraguru Nagar (behind Kandan Complex),
Puducherry. ……….. Complainant
Vs.
1. The Branch Manager,
Life Insurance Corporation (No.802),
No.4, Armenian Street,
Chennai – 600 001.
2. The Branch Manager,
Life Insurance Corporation,
Anna Salai, Puducherry.
3. The Divisional Manager,
Life Insurance Corporation,
Vellore.
4. The Assistant Commissioner,
Employees’ Provident Fund Office,
100 feet Road, Puducherry. ………….. Opposite Parties
BEFORE:
HON’BLE THIRU JUSTICE K.VENKATARAMAN,
PRESIDENT
TMT. K.K.RITHA,
MEMBER
THIRU S.TIROUGNANASSAMBANDANE,
MEMBER
FOR THE APPELLANT:
Party-in person
FOR THE RESPONDENTS/O.Ps:
Respondents 1 and 2 - Exparte
Mr.S.P.Vasudevan, Advocate,
Advocate, Puducherry - for R3.
Mr.C.Elangovan, Advocate,
Puducherry - for R4.
O R D E R
(By Tmt.K.K.Ritha, M.A., M.H.R., B.L., Member)
This appeal is filed by the appellant/complainant (party in person) before this Commission, aggrieved by the order of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Puducherry in C.C.No.30/2012, dated 07.04.2015, wherein the Assistant Commissioner, Employees Provident Fund, Puducherry is directed to pay Rs.20,000/- and the opposite parties 1 to 3 are directed to settle the claim of the complainant as per the terms and conditions of the policy and to pay Rs.5,000/- towards costs of the proceedings.
2. The appellant is a member of Employees’ Provident Fund Scheme and preferred to finance from E.P.F. account to the Life Insurance Corporation. He had opened a Money Back Policy with O.P.s 1 to 3 and the sum assured is Rs.50,000/-. The annual premium is Rs.4,310/- for fifteen years and assigned the E.P.F. Office for the payment of premium with an option to receive the survival benefits of the sum assured on completion of five years of policy on each occasion and the remaining 50% of the sum assured with accrued bonus to be payable on the date of maturity. The policy commenced from 28.08.1995 to 28.08.2009 and the policy maturity date is 28.08.2010. As per the terms, the survival date of first installment is on 28.08.2000 and 25% of sum assured is Rs.12,500/-, the 2nd installment is on 28.08.2005 and 25% of the sum assured is Rs.12,500/- which has to be transferred to Provident Fund Account on the said survival date by respondents 1 to 3 and for this Provident Fund Authority will pay interest at 9.5% and 9% p.a. respectively. The remaining amount of 50% on the sum assured is Rs.25,000/- during which accrued bonus of Rs.32,500/- have to be transferred to the Provident Fund Account on the maturity date up to 28.08.2010 and the Provident Fund Authority will pay interest as per the norms.
3. Eventhough the respondents 1 to 3 have to intimate the policy holder one month prior to the maturity date, the policy holder had not received any intimation even after the lapse of three months from the date of maturity. When approached, O.P.No.2 informed that the yearly premium for the period from 1996 to 1999 only were received and directed him to contact Chennai Branch, but failed to receive any response from them.
4. The appellant states that eventhough the entire premium has been received from 1995 to 2000, the respondents 1 to 3 failed to transfer the amount assured on the survival date to the P.F. account (O.P.No.4) and that had caused monetary loss and mental agony to him.
5. From the records, it is seen that the respondents 1 to 3 (O.P.s 1 to 3), have not received first five year premium continuously from O.P.No.4 i.e. upto August, 2000. Further, they have received cheque for the dues of August, 2007 and August, 2009 on 01.10.2007 and 04.09.2009 only without receiving regular premium for the survival benefits. Since the policy is in default and not in full force, premium for four years only can be paid as maturity benefits as per non-forfeiture regulations.
6. During the course of appeal, the appellant filed a memo stating that he had received four cheques from 1st respondent for Rs. 86,350/- ( Rs.12,500/- + 12,500/- + 58,850/- and Rs.2,500) and encashed the total amount without prejudice as part amount. The appellant prays to direct the respondents 1 to 3 to pay Rs.3,13,938/- as the sum assured with accrued bonus to the tune of 20% p.a. as interest from 28.08.2000 to 16.07.2015 after having deducted the part settlement of Rs.86,350/- already received.
7. It is not disputed that the appellant has availed L.I.C. policy from the respondents 1 to 3 and assigned R4 for payment of premium to R1 to R3 as per the conditions of the policy. Accordingly, R4 has to pay the premium from his P.F. account periodically. It was a money-back policy and the sum assured by R1 to R3 was Rs.50,000/- and yearly premium was Rs.4,310/- for fifteen years with accrued bonus and survival benefit payable on completion of five years.
8. From the records, it is clear that R1 to R3 have not received the premium continuously from R4 and moreover it has been paid belatedly. R4 has not denied this. The only statement made by R4 is that there is no prayer against them in the complaint, in the written arguments or in the cross-examination of the complainant. The learned counsel for the respondent No.4 vehemently argued that there is no prayer against the respondent No.4 by the complainant.
9. It is observed that the appellant party in person has not made any specific prayer against 4th respondent, but, in his written arguments he had mentioned that
“the opposite parties/respondents 1 to 4 made me suffer loss and injury due to their negligent and deficiency in service and further I am 63 years old having heart ailment could not be tolerated for getting the claims for the genuine investment needed to face struggling with mental agony from the entrusted E.P.F.O. and L.I.C. and it is some sort of harassment.”
10. Even though there is no prayer against respondent No.4, the concept of Consumer Protection Act is to observe the Principles of Natural Justice and to give relief of the specific nature and to award, wherever appropriate, compensation to the consumers. It is crystal clear that the respondent No.4 had failed in its duty in not making the payment of premium promptly as entrusted by the appellant. The 4th respondent is answerable for the dereliction of its duty which had caused undue sufferings, mental agony and monetary loss to the appellant. Hence, the appellant has to be compensated for the lapse committed by the 4th respondent.
11. As far as respondents 1 to 3 are concerned, they owe a duty towards the appellant since they failed to intimate the policy holder one month prior to the maturity date and failed even after a lapse of three months from the date of maturity. But the respondents 1 to 3 have come forward to make the part payment of Rs.86,350/- during the proceedings of this case.
12. The District Forum in its order dated 07.04.2015 has directed the 4th opposite party (E.P.F.) to pay a sum of Rs.20,000/- as compensation to the complainant and the opposite parties 1 to 3 (L.I.C.) to settle the claim of the complainant as per the terms and conditions of the policy and cost of the proceedings Rs.5,000/-.
13. R4 is responsible for collecting the premium amount of Rs.4,310/- directly from the appellant and remit to L.I.C. If this part has been properly and promptly carried out by respondent No.4 (E.P.F.), the present situation would not have occurred which led the appellant to suffer. The survival benefit could not be settled to the appellant since R4 (E.P.F.) failed to send the premium amount promptly. This fact has not been denied by 4th respondent. The fact is that the status report policy of the appellant, dt. 31.12.2013 shows an outstanding deposit amount of Rs.38,790/- and the total amount collected as Rs.81,890/-. There is no lapse on the part of appellant in making the payment at any time. Hence, R4 (E.P.F.) is solely responsible for the mishap happened and the consequent loss sustained by the appellant. A contract based on good faith and honesty for a genuine claim of the appellant should be allowed in its entirety.
14. As discussed above, the respondent No.4 is liable to pay for the loss and injury suffered by the appellant due to the deficiency in service. The insured cannot suffer for the lapses of his employer in payment of premium since the former has reposed complete faith in the latter.
15. Thus the appellant is entitled to a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- (Rupees One-Lakh and Fifty-Thousand only) towards compensation for deficiency in service and negligence and also a sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty-Thousand only) towards hardship caused to the claimant and the mental agony suffered by him. Thus, the appellant/complainant is entitled to a total sum of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two-Lakhs only) apart from the amount of Rs.86,350/- paid by the respondents 1 to 4 to him.
16. Thus, R4 is directed to pay (i) a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- (Rupees One-Lakh and Fifty-Thousand only) towards compensation for deficiency in service caused to the appellant/complainant (ii) a sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty-Thousand only) for causing hardship, mental agony and (iii) Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five-Thousand only) towards costs.
Dated this the 11th day of March, 2016
(Justice K.VENKATARAMAN)
PRESIDENT
(K.K.RITHA)
MEMBER
(S.TIROUGNANASSAMBANDANE)
MEMBER
