Presented by: -

                   Shri Debasish Bandyopadhyay, President.

Complaint Case No. 251/2019

The  complainant has instituted  this complaint case against the OPs for passing direction upon the OPs to pay the maturity value  of the complainant in respect of the deposited amount of Rs. 24,875/- and also for passing direction upon the OPs to pay compensation of Rs. 2,00,000/- for causing mental harassment, the financial loss and mental agony and also for making payment of Rs. 50,000/- as litigation cost.

Fact of this case

Case of the complainant

This case of the complainant which is deciphered from the petition of complaint in bird’s eye view is that the complainant has a Savings Bank A/C  with Paschim Banga Gramin Bank (OP No. 1) and in the said A/C there was an amount of Rs. 32,597/- upto 29^th June, 2013 and Bank Authority advised  the complainant  to deposit an amount of Rs. 24,875/- before Life Insurance Corporation of India (OP No.2) for better return and the complainant being interested with the proposal  of OP No. 1 to deposit  of an amount of Rs. 24,875/- before OP No. 2 and thereafter the OP No. 1 issued a receipt  for an amount of Rs. 24,875/- dtd. 26.08.2013.  It is stated that the Bank Authority  (OP No. 1) handed over a receipt  of Policy No. 446866224 dated 27.08.2013 issued by Life Insurance Corporation of India Branch 43 J, wherein it has been stated that Policy  No. of the complainant  is 446866224, Type ORD, Sum Assured  Rs. 25,000/- .  It is further stated that  thereafter the complainant has received the certificate  of LIC Policy but the same was not available to the complainant as the said policy  has been received  by LICI on maturity by issuing  a receipt dtd. 16.11.2018 where the Bank Authority  had taken the signatures of the complainant in certain form  and received the original  Policy Certificate issued by the LICI and thereafter the complainant was under the consideration that he would get the maturity amount of his deposited  of Rs. 24,875/-.  It is alleged that the complainant thereafter visited several times to the office of the OP No.1 to get the information   whether  the maturity value has been  credited  in the A/C of the complainant but on each and every occasions the OP No. 1 assured  the complainant  that it would be credited very soon.  It is submitted by the complainant  that thereafter he visited the office of LICI (OP No.2) wherefrom it is reported  that no amount has been deposited against the above noted LICI Policy and thereafter the complainant was in deep problem  and was under  mental pain  and agony and then the complainant went to the office of the OP No. 1 Bank Authority but in vein.  It is also submitted by the complainant that thereafter  the complainant finding no other alternative  has written a letter to the Branch Manager of OP No.1 requesting him to hand over the statement of A/C of his Savings Bank A/C  for the period  30.01.2013 to 25.03.2019 wherefrom it is revealed that amount of Rs. 24,875/- has been deposited  in favour of LICI on 26.08.2013 from the above noted A/C of the complainant but till date the complainant  has not  received the maturity value of the above noted LICI Policy.  It is further alleged that the conduct of the OPs are very much negligent and there is deficiency of service  and unfair trade practice  on the part of the OPs.  According to the complainant he thereafter issued  legal notice dtd. 23.04.2019 through registered post with A/D and OPs received the said notice  and also had given reply of the said notice and advised the complainant to approach before the Competent Authority.  It is pointed out that due to the illegal acts and misconduct on behalf of the OPs the complainant has been suffering  from irreparable loss and injury and mental harassment  and agony.  As per case of the complainant the complainant is a consumer under the OPs, are guilty of unfair trade practice and gross deficiency of service.  For all these reasons the complainant has filed this complaint case as per prayer of the complaint petition.

Defence Case    -    The OPs are contesting this case by filing their respective written version and denying each and every allegations raised by the complainant in the complaint petition.

This specific  case of the OP No. 1 which is revealed from the written version in a nutshell is that the complainant has his Savings Bank A/C (OP No. 1) and he is one of the valuable customer who is maintaining  relationship  with OP No. 1 for a decade or more  and the OP No. 1 has also pointed out  that the  OP No. 2 entered  into a Corporate Agency Agreement  with the OP No. 1 for selling policies and on 26.08.2023 the complainant  expressed his interest  to purchase  a Policy of LICI and accordingly complainant  submitted papers and documents  for taking the said Policy Bond  and on 26.08.2023 the complainant authorized the OP No. 1 to debit an amount of Rs. 24,875/- from his Savings A/C.  It is the further case of the OP No. 1  that the OP No. 1 issued a cheque vide  DD No. 108219 dated 26.08.2023 for an amount  of Rs. 49,750/- and the said DD includes  the price of a policy paid by another customer Smt. Shyamali  Bag.  It is also pointed out that by OP No. 1 that another customer Shri Jagat Pati Mal  purchased  a Policy  on 26.08.2023 and a separate  cheque  of Rs. 24,875/-  was issued to the LIC vide  DD No. 108220 dtd. 26.08.2013 and one Isha Kar duly authorized and employed  by LIC to collect the said cheque  from OP No. 1.  It is the further case of the OP No. 1 is that the complainant  also received the Policy Bond as well as premium receipt from OP No. 2 and or about the month of November  2018  the complainant  placed the original Policy Bond for securing maturity value  before the LIC, Bagnan Branch when maturity proceeds has not been credited in the A/C of the complainant and the Branch Manager of Op No. 2 handed over  a status report to the complainant which disclose that the said amount lof Rs. 24,875/- has not been received by the LIC.  It is alleged that there is no deficiency of service  or unfair trade practice  or negligence  on the part  of the OP No. 1 and so the OP No. 1 has prayed before this District Commission for dismissing  this case with a heavy cost.

          The OP No. 2 in his written version  has adopted the defence alibi  that in this case  the payment instrument  was dishonoured by Axis Bank, Bagnan Branch  banker of OP No. 2 and the said fact that was informed to the OP No. 1 as the proposal  for Life Insurance was introduced by them.  It is submitted that the LIC Authority  had written  to the OP No. 1 on 28.05.2019 through registered  letter  seeking  their co-operation  in the matter as they are in a  better  position to throw light into  the said issue as the bank statement  of the complainant revealed that  a  sum of Rs. 24,975/-  was actually  drawn by the bank from the A/C  of complainant reportedly for onward transmission  to OP No. 2 but the fact is the instrument through  which OP No. 1 made payment  to Op No. 2 for purchasing  the LIC Policy  was dishonoured  .  It is  the further case of the Op No. 2  is that the Op No. 2 was waiting for proper reply from OP No. 1 and thereafter  had sent reminder on 17.09.2019 against   which the OP No. 2 has received only threat  from the complainant.  It is alleged that there is no fault, negligence or deficieny of service on the part of the Op No. 2 and so they are not liable to pay any amount to the complainant.  For all these reasons the Op No. 2 has prayed before this District Commission for dismissing this case against the OP No. 2.

Points of consideration

On the basis of the pleadings of parties  this District Commission for the interest  of  arriving at just and proper  decision  in this case and also for proper and complete adjudication  of the fate of this case, this District Commission is going to adopt the following points of consideration :-

(i)      Is this case maintainable in its present form and in the eye of law?

(ii)     Has this District Commission  jurisdiction to try this case?

(iii)    Whether the complainant is a consumer under the OP or not?

(iii)    Has the complainant  any cause of action for institution of this complaint case against the OPs or not?

(iv)    Is  the complainant is a consumer under the OPs or not?

(v)     Whether the complainant is entitled to get the maturity value  of the LIC Policy in respect of the amount of Rs. 24,875/- or not?

(vi)  Whether the complainant is entitled to get compensation  and litigation cost as per prayer of the complaint petition or not ?

(vi)    To what other relief / reliefs is the complainant entitled to get from this case?

Evidence lying of this case record

In this case the complainant has filed evidence on affidavit alongwith all documents  relied by him and against the said evidence on affidavit the OP NOs. 1 & 2  have filed their interrogatories  and against the said interrogatories  the complainant has given reply.

On the other hand  the OP Nos. 1 & 2 in order to disprove the case of  the complainant has filed evidence on affidavit  and against the said evidence on affidavit the complainant has filed interrogatories and the OPs had given separate reply  against the said interrogatories.

Argument  highlighted  by Ld. Advocates of both sides

In course of argument the complainant side has filed Brief Notes on Argument and in addition to the said Brief Notes on Argument the complainant has also highlighted his verbal submission through his Ld.   Lawyers.  Similarly, the OPs also have filed Brief Notes on Argument and in addition to that Ld. Lawyers of OP Nos. 1 & 2 also have highlighted their verbal argument in this case.

Decision with reasons

The questions and / or issues involved in the first four points of consideration which have been described  above are interlinked  and / or interconnected with one another  and for that reason  and also for the interest  of convenience  of discussion all the four points of consideration are clubbed together  and taken up for discussion jointly.

For the purpose of arriving at just and proper decision  and also for the interest  of proper  and complete adjudication  of this case there is urgent necessity of making scrutiny  of the material of this case record as well as there is also urgent need of scanning the evidence on record.

In this connection  this District Commission after going through the material of this case record and also after making scrutiny of the evidence on record finds that the complainant is an A/C holder  under the OP No. 1 Bank Authority and as per advise of Op No. 1 Bank Authority  the complainant agreed to start the LICI Policy  and to that effect the Op No. 1 Bank Authority has deducted Rs. 24,875/- from the A/C of the complainant as a premium and that amount has also been transmitted to the OP No. 2 for issuing  the Policy Certificate  and  as per statement of A/C  submitted by the complainant which has been issued by OP No. 1 Bank Authority ,  the OP No. 2 received the said amount.  All these factors are clearly reflecting that the complainant is a consumer under the OPs and this case is also maintainable in its present form and in the eye of law.  Moreover, in spite of making payment of the premium amount of Rs. 24,875/- the complainant has not received the maturity value of the LICI Policy which have been described above.  This factor is also reflecting that the complainant has proper cause of action for filing this case.  As the complainant has not yet received the maturity value of the LICI Policy, the cause of action is still continuing .  Relating to the jurisdiction matter this District Commission finds that the complainant is a resident of Shyampur P.S. jurisdiction which is falling under the district of Howrah and the OPs are also carrying  on their business within the district of Howrah and this matter is clearly reflecting  that this District Commission  has its pecuniary jurisdiction  to try this case .  On close scrutiny  of the material of this case record this District Commission finds that the total claim of the complainant is far below of Rs. 20,00,000/- which is the pecuniary  limit of making trial of a case by this District Commission  under the Consumer Protection Act,  1986 .  This factor is also reflecting that this District Commission has its pecuniary jurisdiction to try this case.

Recapitulating the above noted discussion this District Commission finds that this case is maintainable, the complainant is a consumer under the OPs, the complainant has cause of action in the matter of filing this instant case and this District Commission has its territorial and pecuniary jurisdiction to try this case.  Thus, the first four points of consideration are decided in favour of the complainant side.

The point of consideration No. 5 has been framed  over the issue whether the complainant  is entitled to get the maturity value of the LICI Policy which has been described above or not ?  The point of consideration No. 6 is related with the question whether this complainant is entitled to get compensation due to negligence, unfair trade practice and deficiency of service  on the part of the Ops or not?  And the point of consideration No. 7 has been framed  over the issue  whether the complainant is entitled to get any other relief or reliefs  in this case or not?

In order to determine the fate of the above noted 3 (three) points of consideration, this District Commission finds that there is urgent necessity  of evidence on record and documents filed by both sides.  After making scrutiny of the evidence on record and the documents which have been filed by both parties this District Commission finds that there is Savings Bank A/C  of the complainant under the OP No. 1 wherefrom an amount of Rs. 24,875/- has been deducted by the OP No.1 for single premium policy bond  of the OP No. 2 as the OP No. 1 has been working as the Corporate Agent of the OP No. 2 and the said policy bond  was handed over to the complainant by the Op No. 1 and the maturity value  was supposed to be credited in the month of August, 2018.  It is also admitted position that the original policy bond  was taken by the OP No. 2 with proper receipt but till date  the complainant has not yet received the maturity amount and the OPs shifted  their burden of responsibilities to each and every from which the complainant  has been suffering financial loss, mental pain and agony and therefore the complainant  has prayed before this District Commission for maturity value alongwith  interest accrued thereon and also for awarding compensation  and litigation cost.  From the Paragraph 5 to 9  of the written version  filed by OP No. 1 on 5^th December, 2019  and similarly  5^th from the bottom of the written version filed by Op No. 2  from which it is to be revealed  that complainant  has paid the premium amount to the OP No. 2 through OP No. 1 but the OP No. 2  has submitted  that the cheque  of the OP No. 1 has been dishonoured  which fact has been intimated  by the Op No. 2 to the Op No. 1 on 28.05.2019  after  the lapse of more than 5 years and it has been done by the Op No. 2 when the complainant  submitted written representation through  his authorized  agent  and in this regard  the complainant has pointed out that the OP No. 2 intimated  the OP No. 1 as to the validity period  of the said cheque. The materials  on record and evidence produced by both parties goes to show  that the amount of Rs. 24,875/-  has been deducted by the complainant’s A/C for policy bond  of Op No. 2 but till date the complainant has not received the maturity value and interest.  For such activity of the Op Nos. 1 & 2 the complainant definitely has suffered financial loss, mental pain and agony and moreover for such negligent activity  of the OPs  the complainant has approached  before this District Commission for institution of this complaint case and for that reasons  the complaint case in the year 2019 and for that reason the complainant has to incur litigation cost.

A cumulative   consideration of the above noted discussion goes to show that the complainant  is entitled to get the maturity value of the amount of Rs. 24,875/- alongwith interest  and also entitled to get compensation and litigation cost.  Thus, the above noted 3 points of consideration are also decided to in favour of the complainant.

 In the result, it is accordingly,

ORDERED

That this Complaint Case being No. 251/2019 be and the same is allowed on contest  but in part against both the OPs.

It is held that the complainant is entitled to get the maturity value of the premium amount of Rs. 24,875/- alongwith interest  @ 9% per annum from both  OPs of this case  and the complainant is further entitled to get compensation  of Rs. 40,000/- and litigation cost of Rs. 10,000/-.  OP Nos. 1 & 2 are directed to pay the said amount equally to the complainant within 2 (two) months from the date of this final order.  Otherwise the complainant is given liberty to execute this award as per law.

The parties of this case are entitled to get a free copy of this judgment as early as possible.

Let this judgment / final order be uploaded in the official website of this District Commission.

Dictated & corrected by me

  President

Debasish Bandyopadhyay

DCDRC Howrah