Date of Filing : 05.04.2011
Date of Order : 20.03.2012
BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KOLAR
Dated 20th MARCH 2012
PRESENT
Sri. H.V. RAMACHANDRA RAO, B.Sc., BL, ……. PRESIDENT
Sri. T.NAGARAJA, B.Sc., LLB. …….. MEMBER
Smt. K.G.SHANTALA, B.A., LLB. …….. MEMBER
CC No. 102 / 2011
Sri. G.S. Venkatareddy,
S/o. G. Subba Reddy,
Ramaswamypalli Village, Rascharuvu Post,
Bagepalli Taluk, Chelur Hobli,
Chikkaballapur District.
(By Sri. N. Shivakumar & others, Adv.) ……. Complainant
V/s.
1. The Branch Manager,
Life Insurance Corporation of India,
Kolar Branch,
Kolar.
2. The Senior Divisional Manager,
Appellate Authority,
LIC of India, Divisional Office,
Jeevan Jyothi Building, Indiranagar,
Bangalore – 560 038.
3. The Divisional Manager,
K.S.R.T.C., Kolar Division,
Kolar.
(By Sri. Samarangappa, Adv. for Ops 1 & 2)
(By Sri. K. Narasimhagowda, Adv. for OP3) …… Opposite Parties
ORDER
By Smt. K.G. SHANTALA, MEMBER
The Complainant has filed this Complaint seeking directions against the OPs that
(i) To redirect the payments so collected towards the premium in respect of Policy bearing No. 610979996 including the wrongly debited premium to the Policy No. 361238978 along with interest @ 24% P.A. from 28.07.1993 till the date of realization.
(ii) To pay the matured amount under the said money-back policy at regular interval (every five years) from time to time as applicable with interest @ 24% P.A. till date
(iii) To pay Rs.2,00,000/- as compensation for mental agony, harassment etc.
(iv) To pay costs and such other reliefs.
alleging that the Complainant is working as a Conductor in KSRTC, Kolar District i.e., OP3. Ops 1 & 2 had advertised themselves as most oldest and most reliable insurance providers in the Country and OP1 is subordinate and accountable to OP2 and on behalf of OP2, OP1 had collected monthly premium amount from the complainant towards Money-Back Policy. Complainant’s wife is a nominee under the Policy. Complainant received an insurance Policy bearing No. 610979996 for the assured sum of Rs.50,000/- dtd. 28.07.1993. Policy started from 28.07.1995 and matures by 28.07.2018 being 25 years term. Monthly premium towards Policy was Rs.234/-. The said premium amount was to be deducted from the Complainant’s salary since the Complainant had issued irrevocable mandate to his employer i.e., KSRTC. The Complainant had paid his first premium of Rs.234/- towards his Policy No. 610979996 on 31.07.1993. OP1 had collected correct amount to correct policy number at the initial stage and abruptly stopped for next couple of occasions and again started to collect the wrong amount to the wrong Policy Number. Even though there was no fault on the part of complainant in payment of his regular premium amounts by way of mandate given to his employer for deduction of regular premiums out of his monthly salary, the OP No. 1 was responsible to debit the same to his exact policy number with exact number. Instead, OP1 had wrongly collected the premium amount for wrong amount and towards a wrong policy number. Ops 1 & 2 being reputed Insurance Companies had deprived the Complainant of his right to have money-back amount for once in every 5 years with 15% interest over the sum assured and even after lapse of 17 years from the date of taking the Policy, the insured i.e., Complainant had not been issued a single rupee which was contrary to the terms & conditions mentioned in the Policy to the Complainant. The Complainant was under the bonafide impression that regularly premium was being deducted from his salary and his policy was yielding good returns. He had not questioned the money-back amount which he deserved thinking that the amount would be added to his policy. The Complainant got issued legal notice to the Ops and OP2 gave untenable reply. The Complainant then filed this Complaint seeking justice.
3. On being served with notice, the Ops 1 & 2 have filed version stating that the premiums have not been received from the employer i.e., KSRTC, Kolar, commencing from 09/1993 to 06/2018 regularly as per the terms & conditions in the authorization letter sent to the employer immediately after policy issued to life assured. OP received premiums at the rate of Rs.290/- from the employer under wrong policy bearing No. 361238978 from 06/2000 to 04/2008 with 4 gaps i.e., 06/2001, 11/2001, 10/2003, 03/2005. Total premium received with respect to wrong Policy No. 361238978 is Rs.26,390/- (from 06/2000 to 04/2008) and total premium received for the correct Policy No. 610979996 is Rs.7,956/- (from 09/2008 to 06/2011). Ops have not received premiums from the employer for the months of 09/1993, 05/2000, Gap for 06/2001, 11/2001, 10/2003, 03/2005, 05/2008 to 08/2008. This has been communicated to the Complainant vide letter dtd. 16.12.2010 & 14.02.2011. The premiums have not been received regularly from 09/1993. Ops have received only intermittent payments and the same could not be adjusted. These amounts have been kept in deposit account. Hence, the Policy stands in lapsed condition. When the premiums are not being deducted from the salary and adjusted to the Policy, it is the responsibility of the policy holder to pay the due premiums and keep the policy in force. Ops have already returned the premium of Rs.34,346/-. Hence, prayed to dismiss the Complaint.
4. The Complainant impleaded OP3 and after coming on record OP3 filed documents. OP3 sought to reopen the case for evidence. In ILR 2004 KAR 2215 between Rabiya Bi Kassim M & The Country Wide Consumer Financial Service Ltd., it is held that “CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE, 1908 (5 of 1908) – ORDER 18, RULE 2 CLAUSE 4 – Application under – Reopening of the case to record evidence – Held, Once the matter has been heard and posted for judgment, nothing is required to be done by the Court except to pronounce the judgment – Interlocutory application to reopen the case and record further evidence after the matter is reserved for pronouncement of judgment, is not permissible – No application can be filed after the final arguments have been heard and the matter is posted for judgment”, since it would have amounted to contempt of Court following the Judgement of Apex Court in AIR 1963 SC 2004. Hence, IA is ordered to be filed.
5. Based on the complaint averments, versions and documents filed, the points that arise for our consideration are as under:
(A) Whether there is deficiency ?
(B) If so, to what relief/s the Complainant is entitled ?
6. Our findings on the above points are as under:
(A) Affirmative
(B) As per detailed order for the following reasons
REASONS
7. Point Nos. A & B – The Policy chosen by the Complainant is Money-Back Policy under Salary Deduction and it is admitted by the Ops in their version. It being a Money Back Policy, the amounts would become due on completion of every 5th, 10th, 15th & 20th year from the date of Policy. As such, the Ops being trustees of public money ought to have corresponded with OP3 i.e., employer of the Complainant regarding non remittance of any premium / premia as they fell due for payment of the 1st installment. Had they corresponded, the actual remittances would have come to light. Instead of calling upon the Complainant to produce pay / salary slips for these periods, they can look into the registers containing the remittances made in respect of the Complainant’s Policy. The burden is on the Ops 1 & 2 to show that no remittance was received towards Complainant’s Policy No. 610979996. OP3 has produced premium remittance Challan pertaining to Sep. 1995 & Jan. 1997 which do not include the Complainant’s Policy No. 610979996. Merely producing random premium remittance Challan is not conclusive proof that no remittance was made towards the Complainant’s Policy under Salary Deduction Scheme between Sep. 1993 & Apr. 2000. Having undertaken to remit to OP1 by deducting from the monthly salary of the Complainant, by not promptly doing so, has violated the terms of the authorization letter. By deducting and remitting in excess of Rs.234/- per month i.e., premium fixed by Ops 1 & 2, OP3 has shown deficiency in service. Similarly by receiving more than the fixed premium i.e., Rs.290/- per month instead of Rs.234/- per month as premium, Ops 1 & 2 have also shown deficiency in service. Remitting Rs.290/- per month as premium towards Policy No. 361238978 does not belong to the complainant. OP3 has shown deficiency in service. Similarly, by accepting Rs.290/- per month as premium towards Policy other than that of the Complainant without properly verifying the correct Policy Number, Ops 1 & 2 have shown deficiency. By not corresponding with OP3 at an appropriate time and not facilitating to pay back the amount as and when the amounts fell due to the Complainant, Ops 1 to 3 have shown gross negligence and are guilty of not safeguarding the Complainant’s interest. As the Ops have not produced material documents, it can be presumed that the Ops 1 & 2 had received all the remittances towards the Complainant’s Policy No. 610979996 from 1993 to 2000. The remittance of Rs.290/- per month made to Policy No. 361238978 which does not belong to Complainant which the Ops 1 & 2 have held in reserve account ought to be remitted to the Complainant’s Policy No. 610979996 and the excess amount received should be adjusted towards the four premiums which are due. Hence, we are of the opinion that all the Ops are liable. Hence, we hold the point in the affirmative and we proceed to pass the following
ORDER
1. The Complaint is allowed in part.
2. The Ops 1 & 2 shall pay to the Complainant 1st, 2nd, 3rd & 4th installments of the money-back amounts with interest @ 12% P.A. from the date of each payment fell due till the date of realization within 30 days from the date of this order.
3. The Ops shall adjust the excess remittance made towards past 4 premiums and future premium.
4. The Ops shall pay costs of Rs.2,000/- to the Complainant.
5. Ops shall comply with the order as stated above within the time stated above and submit to this Forum the compliance report with necessary documents within 45 days.
6. Office is directed to return extra sets to the parties concerned under the Regulation 20(3) of the Consumer Protection Regulations 2005.
7. Send a copy of this order to the parties free of cost.
(Dictated to the Stenographer, got it transcribed and corrected and pronounced in the open Forum on this the 20th day of March 2012)
T. NAGARAJA K.G.SHANTALA H.V.RAMACHANDRA RAO
Member Member President
SSS
