1.                     The brief history of the case of the complainant is that she has obtained SBI Life – Money Back Plan bearing No.14033180104 with date of commencement as 15.3.2011 for a sum assured of Rs.4, 20,000/- from the Ops with yearly premium mode.  It is submitted that she has regularly paid premiums every year but the premium of Rs.34, 571/- paid on 13.3.2015 has not been credited against her policy as she found it from the office of OP No.1.  It is further submitted that she made an application to OP.1 on 08.3.2016 intimating non credit of premium for 3/2015 but till date her case has not been considered by the Ops.  Thus alleging deficiency in service on the part of the Ops, she filed this case praying the Forum to direct the Ops to credit the amount of Rs.34, 571/- for the premium 3/15 and to pay Rs.52, 000/- towards compensation and costs to the complainant.

2.                     The Ops filed counter in joint admitting the SBI Life Money Back Policy bearing No.14033180104 issued in favour of the complainant w.e.f. 15.3.2011 with annual premium for a term of 15 years for a SA of Rs.4, 20, 000/- and contended that they have received 4 premiums under the policy till 15.3.2014 but not received premium for 15.3.2015 for which the policy is in lapsed condition.  It is further contended that they have not issued any premium paid certificate dt.13.3.2015 and the copy of said certificate furnished by the complainant is not genuine.  The Ops also further contended that the complainant has not mentioned how, on which date and specific amount and mode by which she has paid the alleged premium and also has not mentioned any instrument number in the complaint and complainant was advised through website of SBI life not to handover cash of renewal premium payment to any entity except at the authorized collection centers.  As such the Ops are not responsible for the personal transaction of the complainant.  Thus denying any deficiency in service on their part, the Ops prayed to dismiss the case of the complainant.

3.                     Both the parties have filed certain documents in support of their cases.  The Ops filed affidavit in evidence.  Heard from the complainant and the A/R for the Ops and perused the materials available on record.

4.                     In this case the SBI Life Money Back Policy bearing No.14033180104 issued in favour of the complainant w.e.f. 15.3.2011 and receipt of renewal premium till 15.3.2014 are all admitted facts.  The case of the complainant is that she paid premium for 3/2015 in cash for her policy and handed over the premium in shape of cash for Rs.34, 571/- to one Prasanta Kumar Moharana, Clerk in the office of OP.1 and the said Clerk issued premium paid certificate dt.13.3.15 in token of receipt of premium for 3/15 but when she approached the OP.1 on 08.3.16 to pay renewal premium, she could know that premium for 3/15 remains unpaid.  After enquiry, she came to know that the premium for 3/15 has not been received under the policy and hence she made an application dt.08.3.15 to the OP.1 requesting adjustment of premium deposited on 13.3.15.

5.                     The Ops on the other hand stated that they have not received the premium for 3/15 and the premium receipt certificate furnished by the complainant stated to be issued from the office of OP.1 is not genuine.  The Ops also further stated that the complainant has not furnished any bank instrument in support of her payment and it was clearly mentioned in the website of SBI Life not to handover cash of renewal premium payment to any entity except at the authorized collection centers.  Hence the transaction if any made by the complainant is a personal transaction for which the Ops are not liable.

6.                     This being the position of this case, it is to be ascertained as to who Mr. Prasanta Kumar Moharana is alleged to have received the premium.  The complainant says that Mr. Moharana is the Clerk of OP.1 sitting in the office and she handed over cash to him and obtained receipt dt.13.3.15.  The Ops did not utter a single word about the Clerk in their counter but simply stated that the money receipt dt.13.3.15 is not genuine.  It is further seen that the Ops have allowed their customers to deposit cash for renewal premium at their collection centers.  The complainant is a widow and also a working lady.  She went to the office of OP.1 and met the clerk who received the cash for the premium and issued receipt.  The office clerk of OP.1 is believed to be a genuine person in general and well guided by the Ops and hence the clerk is a man who can be trusted upon.  If the Ops face any problem to collect cash in their office, they should advise the complainant suitably but without doing so, the Clerk of OP.1 received the cash and issued receipt.  If later on the Ops term the said receipt as not genuine, how could they say that their Clerk is genuine and as such it can be said that they have appointed a fraud in his office to misguide the customers.  A common man can easily trust and take advice of a person who is holding a public office.  If the said person commits any fraud, the officer is liable and also answerable to public.  Similarly in this case, the complainant has paid premium for 3/15 to the Clerk of the office of OP.1 who has granted receipt and getting the receipt, the complainant is on belief that she has paid the premium.  Hence the complainant is not liable if the premium remains unadjusted and she should not suffer at the hands of the OPs.  For the fault of servant, the master is liable which the law of the land is.  Therefore, the complainant has paid the premium for 3/15 and the Ops are to adjust the said premium without charging any interest.  In the peculiar circumstances of the case, we are not inclined to grant any compensation and cost in the favour of the complainant as prayed for.

7.                     Hence ordered that the complaint petition is allowed in part and the Ops being jointly and severally liable are directed to regularize the premium for 3/2015 without charging any interest within 30 days from the date of communication of this order with due intimation to the complainant as Rs.34, 571/- has already been paid by the complainant on 13.3.2015.  Parties are to bear their own costs.

(to dict.)