Karnataka

Chitradurga

CC/303/2018

Sri Md.Sharif - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Branch Manager,LIC of India - Opp.Party(s)

Sri.Thippeswamy.N

14 Jun 2019

ORDER

COMPLAINT FILED ON:21/12/2018

DISPOSED      ON:14/06/2019

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, CHITRADURGA.

CC.NO:303/2018

 

DATED: 14^th JUNE 2019

PRESENT :-         SRI.T.N.SREENIVASAIAH      :   PRESIDENT                                                     B.A., LL.B.,

SMT. JYOTHI RADHESH JEMBAGI

BSc.,MBA., DHA.,         :     LADY MEMBER

                             SRI. SHIVAKUMAR.K.N         :     MEMBER

                                      M.Com., LL.B.,

……COMPLAINANT/S	Md. Shariff, S/o Sayyed Hussain, Age: 65 Years, Retired Employee, R/o Near Filter House, Chitradurga.   (Rep by Sri.Thippeswamy. N, Advocate)
V/S
…..OPPOSITE PARTIES	1. The Branch Manager, Life Insurance Corporation of India, Branch Office, Challakere.   2. The Divisional Manager, Life Insurance Corporation of India, Divisional Office, 100 Feet road, Gopal Gowda Extension, Shimoga.   3. The Branch Manager, Life Insurance Corporation of India, B.D. Road, Chitradurga.   4. Sri Basavaraj @ Basava Reddy, LIC Agent, R/o Sainika Clinic, Behind LIC Office, Challakere.   (Rep by Sri.H.S. Sathyanarayana Shetty, Advocate for OP No.1 to 3 and OP No.3 in-person)

ORDER

SRI. T.N. SREENIVASAIAH:   PRESIDENT

The above complaint has been filed by the complainant u/Sec.12 of the C.P. Act, 1986 for the relief to direct the OPs to pay Rs.4,00,000/- with interest at the rate of 12% p.a and o grant such other relief.

2.      The brief facts of the case of the above complainant are that, he was working as a Peon in PWD office at Challakere and retired from service in the year 2006 and he obtained insurance policies bearing No.623856383, 623933791, 623933971, 623819163, 623786594 and 623786882. The same are within the custody of OP No.1 and the premium amount has been deducted from the salary of complainant.  After retirement, the premium amount was deducting from his pension and all the policies are already matured lost three years back.  The OP No.1 has not sent any intimation to the complainant in respect of maturity of the insurance policies.  The complainant has approached OP No.4, who is the agent of the said policies, but the OP No.4 also not hears the words of the complainant.  Finally the complainant approached the Superintendent of Police, Chitradurga with regard to the non-payment of the amount under the above said policies by the OP No.1.  Therefore, the complainant has issued legal notice to the OPs on 10.11.2018, the same were served to the OPs and they have replied the same, but they have not come forward to settle the claim of the complainant.  Finally, the OP No.1 has received all the documents from the complainant, but in spite of settle the claim, the OP No.1 has repudiated to settle the claim, which is a deficiency of service.   The cause of action arose for this complaint is on 10.11.2018, when the legal notice issued to the OPs, which is within the jurisdiction of this Forum and prayed for allow the complaint.

 3.     On service of notice, OP No.1 to 4 appeared through Sri. H.S. Sathyanrayana Shetty, Advocate and filed version.  OP No.4 appeared in person but not filed version, therefore, the version of OP No.4 is taken as not filed. 

According to the version filed by the OP No.1 to 3 admitting about issuance of the above said insurance policies, but it is concerned to these OPs that, the complainant was working as a peon in PWD office at Challakere and retired from the service in the year 2006 are not concerned to these OPs.  The averments made in para 5 of the complaint are all denied as false.  These OPs have received the maturity claim requirements in all the above five policies and settled the claim, recoveries made and net claim amount paid etc., with cheque.  For the Policy No.623826383 and 623819163, the complainant opted for pre-maturity and obtained the discounted value of the maturity claim.  When the claim is taken well before the maturity by discounting the claim, it is not fare on the part of complainant to file this complaint.  The complainant has filed this complaint only to harass the OP No.1 to 4 to make wrongful gain and complainant has encashed all the policies claim cheques long back and these OPs do not have any amounts under the said policies under cheque cancelled a/c under the said policies, as the complainant has realized the entire amount due under the said policies.  It is false to state that, these OPs have not given the policy amount to the complainant.  These OPs have sent stop recovery advise to the employer as and when the policy matured for payment and there is no provision to recover the premium amounts from the pension.  The averments made in para 5 of the complaint are denied as false.  These OPs have settled the entire disputed policy claim amount by way of issuing cheques after receiving the claim requirements and therefore, these OPs are not liable for payment of any amount under the above said policies as there is no deficiency of service on their part and hence, prayed for dismissal of the complaint.     

      4. Complainant himself has examined as PW-1 by filing affidavit evidence and the documents Ex.A-1 to A-8 were got marked and closed his side. On behalf of OP No.1 to 3, one Sri. B. Shamanna, the Administrative Officer has examined as DW-1 by filing the affidavit evidence and Ex.B-1 to Ex.B-7 documents have been got marked and closed their side.  

 

5.      Arguments heard.

6.      Now the points that arise for our consideration for decision of above complaints are that;

(1)  Whether the complainant proves that the OPs have committed deficiency of service in settling the claim under the above said insurance policies and entitled for the reliefs as prayed for in the above complaint?

              (3) What order?

 

         7.       Our findings on the above points are as follows:-

                    Point No.1:- Partly in Affirmative. 

Point No.2:- As per final order.

REASONS

8.      Point No.1:- There is no dispute between the parties that, complainant was working as a Peon in PWD office at Challakere and retired from service in the year 2006.  During his life time, he obtained insurance policies bearing No.623856383, 623933791, 623933971, 623819163, 623786594 and 623786882, the same are within the custody of OP No.1 and the premium amount has been deducted from the salary of complainant.  After retirement, the premium amount was deducting from his pension and all the policies are already matured for the last three years.  The OP No.1 has not sent any intimation to the complainant in respect of maturity of the insurance policies.  For that the complainant has approached OP No.4, who is the agent of the said policies, but the OP No.4 also not hears the words of the complainant.  Thereafter the complainant approached the Superintendent of Police, Chitradurga with regard to the non-payment of the amount under the above said policies by the OP No.1, but it went in vain, which is a deficiency of service.  When the Insurance company accepted the policy from the complainant, it is the duty of the Insurance company to settle the amount under the policy, but the OP Insurance company failed to settle the claim of the complainant, which is a deficiency of service.

  9. We have gone through the entire documents filed by the complainant and the OP No.1 to 3.  The arguments addressed by the OPs and the document produced at Ex.B-7 shows that the matured amount under the above said policies have been already sent to the complainant.  The Advocate for the complainant submitted his arguments stating that, the OP insurance company has produced the Ex.B-7 before this Forum stating that the amount has been sent to the complainant, but they have not produced any piece of paper before this Forum to show that, the said amount has been reached to the account of the complainant policy holder.  Further the OP Advocate submits that the complainant has filed this complaint after a lapse of 10 years. The Advocate for the complainant has given reasons and explained the delay to file the complaint that, the complainant is an innocent person and he was working as a peon in PWD office and he was not having the knowledge with regard to claiming the insurance amount from the OP No.1 to 3.  But the Exhibits produced by the complainant and OPs are clearly shows that the complainant is having the policies from the OP No.1 to 3 through OP No.4.  But the OP No.1 to 3 have not produced any documents before this Forum to show that the amount was reached to the complainant account, simply they have stated that, the amount has been sent to the complainant, but not produced any document to prove the same.  Therefore, the complainant is entitled for the amount as per Ex.B-7 and Ex.A-3.  Accordingly, the complainant is entitled for an amount of Rs.8,404/- under policy No.623856383, Rs.7,373/- under policy No.623933971, Rs.7,021/- under policy No.623819163 and Rs.14,887/- under policy No.623786882.  The policy Nos.623933971 and 623786882 are repeated and hence, the complainant is not entitled for the same.  Therefore, viewed from any angle, we find that, the OP No.1 to 3 have committed deficiency of service in settling the claim of the complainant under the policies as mentioned above.  Accordingly, this Point No.1 is held as partly affirmative to the complainant.          

            10.     Point No.3:- As discussed on the above point and for the reasons stated therein we pass the following:-

ORDER

The complaint filed by the complainant U/s 12 of CP Act 1986 is hereby partly allowed.

It is ordered that, the OP No.1 to 3 are hereby directed to pay a sum of Rs.8,404/- under Policy No.623856383, Rs.7,373/- under Policy No.623933971, Rs.7,021/- under Policy No.623819163 and Rs.14,887/- under Policy No.623786882 to the complainant along with interest at the rate of 9% p.a from the date of complaint till realization. 

It is further ordered that, the OP No.1 to 3 are hereby directed to pay Rs.5,000/- towards mental agony and Rs.5,000/- towards costs of this proceedings to the complainant.  

The complaint filed as against OP No.4 is hereby dismissed.

It is further ordered that, the OP No.1 to 3 are hereby directed to comply the above order within 30 days from the date of this order.

(This order is made with the consent of Member after the correction of the draft on 14/06/2019 and it is pronounced in the open Court after our signatures)         

 

                                     

LADY MEMBER           MEMBER          PRESIDENT

-:ANNEXURES:-

Witnesses examined on behalf of Complainant:

PW-1:  Complainant by way of affidavit evidence.

Witnesses examined on behalf of OPs:

DW-1:  Sri.B. Shamanna, the Administrative Officer of OP No.1 to 3 by way of affidavit evidence. 

Documents marked on behalf of Complainant:

01	Ex-A-1:-	Legal Notice dated 16.11.2018
02	Ex-A-2:-	4 Postal receipts
03	Ex-A-3:-	Reply dated 25.11.2018
04	Ex-A-4:-	Complaint dated 05.10.2018
05	Ex-A-5:-	Complaint dated 04.09.2018
06	Ex-A-6:-	Returned Postal cover
07	Ex.A-7:-	2 postal acknowledgements
08	Ex.A-8:-	Statement of account

Documents marked on behalf of OPs:

01	Ex-B-1:-	Policy
02	Ex.B-2 to 7:-	Status reports  of the above said policies

 

 

 

LADY MEMBER           MEMBER                      PRESIDENT

Rhr**