To-day is fixed for admission hearing.
Ld. Advocate for the complainant files hazira.
Heard the Ld lawyer. Perused the complaint and the documents attached thereto.
The case of the complainant is, in brief, that he is a holder of Life Insurance Policy, the maturity value (Rs. 8,08,500/-) of which is payable through NEFT on 28.03.2019. For this purpose, the complainant submitted necessary papers to the OP-LICI, Sevoke Road Branch, on 27.02.2019. But the OP did not transfer the maturity amount to the Bank a/c of the complainant. The complainant would make an advance by the said maturity amount of Rs. 8,08,500/- for the land he agreed to purchase but that deal was cancelled due to non-fulfillment of the terms. The complainant assessed the financial damage to the tune of Rs. 4,11,000/- over and above the amount of Rs. 8,08,500/- which was to be advanced to the intending seller.
The complainant sent a legal notice dtd. 05.04.2019 to the OP-LICI, requesting to make payment within 15 days and by a reply dtd. 10.04.2019 thereto, the OP admitted their inadvertence and made payment through cheque dtd. 28.03.2019 to the complainant who, in turn, encashed on 11.04.2019. The complainant claims that the inadvertence so admitted is a deficiency in service and the cancellation of the deal of land is a financial damage suffered by him. Hence is the case.
A perusal of the complaint reveals the followings:-
- The cause of action, which arose on 28.03.2019, ends on 11.04.2019 with the encashment of cheque by the complainant though received after a delay of 14 days. The complainant received it without any objection on date or thereafter. Had the OP-LICI refused to make payment, the date of such refusal would have been the date of cause of action.
- So far as the complainant’s financial loss due to cancellation of the deal of agreed purchase of land is concerned, the complainant did not submit any copy of agreement or even mention, at least, the date of such agreement, if any. The intending seller remains also unidentified, as no name & address is mentioned in the complaint. It is also a question how the damage was assessed though the losses could not admittedly be measured.
- The time limit within which the OP was to make payment of maturity value of Rs. 8,08,500/- differs as prescribed in Layer’s notice dtd. 05.04.2019 from that stated in Para 8 of the complaint leading to the confusion of the Forum.
- Thus circumstanced by fact, the instant complaint case appears palpably to have not any admissibility and hence rejected.
