Orissa

Jharsuguda

CC/96/2014

Radhanath Guru, S/O-Late Gangadhar Guru - Complainant(s)

Versus

The BranchManager LIC OF India,Sambalpur Branch - Opp.Party(s)

Self

21 Apr 2015

ORDER

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, JHARSUGUDA

 

CONSUMER COMPLAINT CASE NO. 96 OF 2014

 

Radhanath Guru (61 Yrs),

S/O- Late Gangadhar Guru,

Occupation: Retired Govt. Employee & Sr. Citizen,

RO: Pokharasalhe, PO: Malidihi, 

PS: Kolabira,  Dist:Jharsuguda, Odisha………………..…………Complainant.

     

                                           

Versus

 

1. The Branch Manager,

LIC of India, Sambalpur Branch,

PO/PS: Ainthapali Chowk, 

Dist: Sambalpur, Odisha.

 

2. The C.R.M, LIC of India, Sambalpur Branch,

PO/PS: Ainthapali Chowk, 

Dist: Sambalpur, Odisha.

 

3. The Branch Manager, Indian Overseas Bank,

PO/PS: Ainthapali Chowk, 

Dist: Sambalpur, Odisha.

 

4. The Branch Manager,  LIC of India, Jharsuguda Branch

PO/PS/Dist: Jharsuguda, Odisha.…………………………..….…...Opp. Parties.

 

Counsel for the Parties:-

For the Complainant                                 Shri S.K.Patel, Adv. & Associates.

For the Opp. Party No. 1, 2 & 4              Shri B.N.Dutta, Adv. Associates.

For the Opp. Party No. 3                         Shri B.K.Agrawal, Advocate.

 

Date of Order: 22.04.2015

 

Present

                                               1. Shri S.L.Behera, President.

                                               2. Shri S.K. Ojha, Sr. Member.

                                               3. Smt. A. Nanda, Member.

 

Shri S. K. Ojha,Sr. Member: - This is the case of a retired Government teacher against LIC of India and  concerned Bank, as the particular cheque issued by  LIC of India has been debited from the LIC’s account in earlier date but the complainant is yet to receive such amount where Bank is unknown in the matter.

 

The brief facts of the complainant’s case is that, the complainant had insured himself with the O.P.No.1 under a Money back Policy having sum assured of Rs.50,000/- on dtd. 28.03.1999 bearing LIC Policy No.591165209. As per the terms and conditions of policy, the O.P.No.1 should refund Rs.15,000/- only as the 1^st phase of money back amount but the O.P.No.1 failed to do so.  The complainant visited several times and enquired the matter orally as well as in written several times with the different concerned authorities of the O.P.No.1, but no result has come out. At last the B.M Unit No.1 and C.R.M, LIC,  Sambalpur Division refused to pay the said amount and demanded and undertaking on a stamp paper worth Rs.100/- only  but complying on the same also the O.Ps. Refused to pay the said money back amount of 1st phase.  Finding no other way the complainant knocked the door of this Hon’ble Forum seeking proper relief by filing this case along with relied documents.

 

Being noticed, the O.Ps. appeared and filed written versions through their respective counsels.  On behalf of O.P.No.1, 2 & 4 Advocate, Sri B.N.Dutta has appeared with  their consolidated written version, whereas on behalf of O.P.No.3 Advocate, Sri B.K.Agrawal appeared and filed his written version for this case. The O.P.No.1, 2 & 4 jointly submitted that, the complainant has misrepresented and suppressed the material facts and further submitted that the complainant had been issued with a cheque bearing No. 0038915 dtd. 28.03.2003 for an amount of Rs.15,000/- only  and after being noticed regarding non-receipt of the cheque amount by the complainant they immediately informed to the O.P.NO.3 who confirmed vide letter dtd. 06.09.2014 regarding the payment by the bank on dtd. 16.04.2003 from LIC’s account but the details of transaction can not be verified as it is the matter of more than 10 years and after verification of record the accounts department of the branch have confirmed that the said cheque not appearing in “Cheque Cancelled List” as well as “claim settled but outstanding” so the cheque has been encashed and prayed for dismissal of the case.

 

The O.P.No.3 submitted that the complainant is not an account holder of O.P.No.3, there is no privy of contract between the complainant and O.P.No.3 as such the complainant not a consumer as per the Consumer Protection Act,1986 as such the case is not maintainable in the eye of law and the same should be dismissed.

 

Heard and gone through the materials available. The complainant, during his service period had taken a Money Back Life Insurance Policy from the O.P.No.1 bearing policy No. 591165209 having Table and Term 106-15 Sum Assured Rs.50, 000/- only commenced from dtd. 28.03.1999 and matured on dtd.28.03.2014.  As per the terms and conditions of the policy, the O.P.No.1 was to refund Rs.15, 000/- only each in three phases which the O.P.No.1 has refunded the same, but the first money back amount of Rs.15,000/- only which the O.P.No.1 sent through Account Payee cheque bearing No. 038915 dtd.28.03.2003  of Indian Overseas Bank, Sambalpur Branch has not been encashed by the complainant till date.  After being repeatedly requests by the complainant through the various concerned authorities of the O.Ps. (LIC of India) no result has come out.The complainant performed almost all the formalities as suggested by the officials of O.Ps. Even the complainant has executed an Indemnity Bond also. On the other way the O.P.No.1, 2 & 4 (LIC of India) submitted that, the said cheque bearing No. 038915 dtd.28.03.2003 of Indian Overseas Bank, Sambalpur branch had been encashed and debited from the LIC’s account on dtd. 16.04.2003 and also confirmed vide letter No. SBO-1/F&A dt. 23.01.2015 that the said cheque is not appearing in “cheque cancelled list”. The O.P.No.3 (Bank) intimated to the O.P.No.1 that, the captioned cheque has already been paid by their branch on dtd. 16.04.2003 from LIC’s account No. IV but failed to furnish the details of transaction as the related vouchers have been destroy as per bank’s guidelines due to the matter is of more than 10 years.

 

It is worth noting that, the complainant was issued with an Account Payee cheque which cannot be encashed in the shape of cash, rather the amount of the cheque should be credited to the particular bank account of the complainant, but the amount of the said cheque in question has not been credited / transferred so far in any bank account of the complainant.  In the other hand the payer of the cheque (LIC of India) has also failed to furnish details in which particular bank account the said cheque in question has been encashed.  If for instance, the version of the bank (O.P.No.3) is to be considered that, as per the bank’s guidelines the details related to vouchers of more than 10 years are destroyed, but it is the prime duty of the O.P.No.1 (LIC of India) to keep and maintain proper records of accounts of his consumer / policy holder, as the policy expired in the year-2014.

 

In the limelight, the complainant filed a printed copy of a web page mentioning a statement of ‘The Economic Times’ dtd.27.05.2013 that, “the record of documents evidencing identity of customers and beneficial owners as well as account files and business correspondences relating to the customer shall be maintained for at least a period of 5 years after the business relationship with the customer has ended” IRDA (Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority) said”. The complainant has also filed a copy of Guidelines on insurance repositories and electronic issuance of insurance policies of the IRDA (Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority) bearing No. IRDA/ ADMM/ GDL/ GLD/ 080/04/2011, dtd. 29.04.201.  As per the provision-17(3) of the said guidelines, “subject to the provisions of any other law, the insurance repository shall preserve records and documents for a minimum period of ten years from the date of termination or assignment of insurance policy from its records”

 

As per the above mentioned provisions so also as per the principles of natural justice, it was the duty of O.P.No.1 (LIC of India) to maintain proper records of accounts of the complainant, whether the amount of cheque in question has been credited / transferred to the bank account of the complainant or any other bank account. The O.P.No.3 (Indian Overseas Bank) is found to be free from any deficiency in service as he is not a service provider to the complainant.  Non-furnishing of proper records of accounts of the complainant / policy holder clearly arrows towards deficiency in service on the part of O.P.No.1( LIC of India), hence we are in considered opinion to allow the complaint petition with directions to the O.P.No.1 (LIC of India) as follows:-

 

 

 

ORDER

 

1. The O.P.No.1 (LIC of India) is hereby directed to pay a sum of RS.15,000/- (Rupees fifteen thousand) only towards the non-encashment of cheque in question along with @10% compound interest per annum from dtd.28.03.2003 to till the date of order (i.e. 22.04.2015).

 

2. The above mentioned order is to be carried out within one month from the date of receipt of this order, if fails further interest @ 10 % per annum will be charged on the aforementioned total calculated awarded amount till realization.

 

Accordingly the case is disposed of.

Order pronounced in the open court today the 22^nd   day of April’ 2015 and copy of this order shall be supplied to the parties as per rule.              

                       I Agree.                                 I Agree,                                                                                                

                                         

         S.L.Behera,President        A.Nanda, Member (W)         S. K.Ojha, Sr. Member                 

                                               

                                                 Dictated and corrected by me,

    

            S. K.Ojha,Sr. Member.