IN THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, MURSHIDABAD AT BERHAMPORE.
CASE No.CC/111/2014 .
Date of Filing: 20.08.2014. Date of Final Order: 30.03.2017.
Complainant: Haradhan Mondal, C/O Late Srinibas Mondal, Vill. Siddheswari, P.O. Kunia,
P.S. Burwan, Dist. Murshidabad. Pin 742168.
-Vs-
Opposite Party: The Branch Manager, LICI, Kandi Branch, Nutun Hat, P.O. Kandi, Dist. Murshidabad
Pin 742137
Present: Sri Anupam Bhattacharyya …………………. President.
Sri Samaresh Kumar Mitra ……………………..Member.
FINAL ORDER
Sri Anupam Bhattacharyya, Presiding Member.
The instant complaint has been filed by the complainant u/s 12 of C. P. Act, 1986 praying for payment of money back policy amount of Rs.30, 000/- along with interest.
The complainant’s case, in brief, is that the complainant got new Bima Gold money back policy on 28.5.2007 bearing policy No. 425979449, sum assured Rs.2 lakhs paying half-yearly premium of rs.5171/- where his younger brother Dipankar Mondal was nominee of that policy and the scheduled date to get back money amounting to rs.30,000/- of that policy was 28.5.2011. The said amount was wrongly paid to his brother Dipankar Modnal , the nominee where the complainant is alive. The Branch Manager of the OP-Insurance Co admitted their mistake about such payment to the nominee and gave assurance that the complainant will get the same but the problem being not solved the complainant has been compelled to file the instant complaint. Hence, the instant complainant’s case.
The written version filed by the OP-Insurance Company , in brief , is that due to inadvertence the OP paid a sum of Rs.30,000/- to Dipankar Mondal, the nominee, by cheque No. 111950 dt. 31.05.11 inspite of living of the original policy holder Sri Haradhan Mondal and this fact is known to the complainant. Thus OP issued a letter to Dipankar Monal on 24.09.14 but said Dipankar did not return the said amount to the OP and as such said Dipankar Mondal is a necessary party to this case. Life Insurance policy is a contract of almost good faith between two parties. Conspiracy is going between the complainant and the nominee Dipankar Modnal. After a long period of three years from the date of payment clearly indicates that that the complainant did not come before the Ld. Forum with clean hands and a s such the complaint is barred by law of limitation. For that the case is liable to be dismissed. Hence, the instant written version.
Considering the pleadings of both parties the following points have been raised for the disposal of the case.
Points for decision.
- Whether the case is barred by principal of waiver, estoppels and acquiescence?
- Whether the case is maintainable in its present form and in law?
- Whether the complainant has any cause of action to file the present case?
- Whether the complaint is bad for defect of parties?
- Whether the complainant is entitled to get relief as prayed for?
- To what other relief/reliefs the complainant is entitled to get?
Decision with Reasons.
Point Nos. 1 to 6.
All the points are taken up together for the sake of convenience.
The instant complaint is for payment of Rs.30,000/- the money back policy which was admittedly wrongly paid by the OP Insurance Company to the nominee Dipankar Mondal, brother of the complainant but the problem being not solved the complainant has been compelled to file the instant complaint.
On the other hand the OP has admitted that they wrongly paid the said amount to the nominee Dipankar Mondal by cheque No. 111950 dt. 31.05.11 which is known to the complainant but he has not been impleaded though he is a necessary party and the case being filed after lapse of three year the case is liable to be dismissed.
To prove the case the Ld. Lawyer for the complainant has deposed in dock by filing
Evidence on affidavit and tendered on dock for cross-examination and he has been cross-examined in full and discharged and adduced relevant documents in support of his case.
During cross-examination the complainant has deposed that after 4 years 2-3 months of the maturity of his policy he come to know that this elder brother got the maturity amount of his LIC policy.
He has further deposed in his cross-examination that after 4-5 years he applied before the OP-LIC when he came to know that the policy amount was disbursed to his elder brother Dipanker Mondal.
Regarding the argument of the Ld. Lawyer for the OP-Insurance Co. as to barred by Limitation for filing the case after long three years we find from the cross-examination of the complainant –PW-1 that he applied before the OP after knowledge as to disbursement of the amount to his brother, the nominee.
The settled principle is that the limitation will run from the date of knowledge and for that in this particular case considering the evidence of PW-1 we can safely conclude that the instant case is not barred by Limitation.
Regarding the argument of the Ld. lawyer for the OP-Insurance Co as to mis-joinder of necessary party Dipankar Modnal, the nominee of the impugned policy who is younger brother of the complainant we find that in the instant complaint no relief has been sought for against the nominee Dipankar Mondal where the OP-Insurance Co in their written version admitted that due to inadvertence the same amount has been paid to the nominee.
For the mistake of the OP-Insurance Co the complainant cannot suffer.
There is nothing left to decide in presence of the nominee Dipankar Mondal.
Admittedly, Dipankar Mondal is nominee of the impugned policy.
Admittedly, the complainant is entitled to get the said money back of the policy which has been wrongly paid to the nominee by cheque.
Considering the above discussions we find that the instant case is not bad for defect of necessary party.
Regarding the alleged collusion in between the complainant and his brother, there is no iota of evidence as well as any specific case for such collusion.
For absence of any evidence as to collusion the allegation as to collusion is not established and for that the OP-Insurance cannot avoid liability.
Considering the above discussions as a whole we can safely conclude that complainant is entitled to get Rs. 30,000/- along with interest @7% p.a. from the date of maturity of his money back policy till realization and the OP is to pay the same to the complainant.
The OP-Life Insurance Company is at liberty to realize the amount which they had already paid to the nominee, the brother of the complainant.
Hence,
Ordered
that the Consumer Complaint No. 111/14 be and the same is hereby allowed on contest against the OP-Insurance Company.
The complainant is entitled to get Rs.30, 000/- along with interest @7% p.a. from the date of maturity of his money back policy from the OP-Life Insurance Company till realization.
The OP-Life Insurance Company is directed to pay Rs.30, 000/- along with interest @7% p.a from the date of maturity of the money back policy of the complainant till realization to the complainant within 45 days from the date of receipt of this order, failing which the OP-Life Insurance Company is to pay fine @Rs.50/- per day’s delay and the amount so accumulated shall be deposited in the Consumer Legal Aid Account.
Let a plain copy of this order be made available and be supplied free of cost, to each of the parties on contest in person, Ld. Advocate/Agent on record, by hand under proper acknowledgment / be sent forthwith under ordinary post to the concerned parties as per rules, for information and necessary action.
Member President.
