SRI JIBAN KRUSHNA BEHERA, MEMBER (I/C)
The complainant has filed this complaint petition, U/s-35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, (here-in- after called as the “Act”) alleging deficiency in service against the Opp. Parties claiming compensation.
2. The factual matrix of this case is that the complainant had purchased one policy from the OPs vide policy No.582490494. The complainant had paid the premium amount of Rs.305/- quarterly till 2004. Thereafter, he fell ill for which he could not pay the premium and took a loan against the said policy. The complainant submitted the required documents and on observing all formalities, OP No.1 sanctioned a loan to the tune of Rs.6,000/- on 23.12.2005 in shape of account payee cheque bearing No.266875 in favour of the complainant. On receipt of the cheque in question, the complainant opened an Account in his name before the Bank of India, Tudigadia Branch and deposited the said cheque for encashment. As in the meantime, the validity of the cheque was expired, the complainant returned the said cheque to OP No.1 with a request to issue another cheque in his favour, but till date no fresh cheque was issued by the Ops. So, the complainant could not able to avail the loan from the Ops. The policy in question get maturity on 28.12.2012. The complainant met with the Ops and as per direction of the Ops, he had deposited all the required documents before the OP No.1. On several request made by the complainant, the Ops told that after getting clearance of loan department, they will release his maturity amount. Again, on request of the OP No.1, the complainant submitted all necessary documents through OP No.3 for withdrawal of his maturity amount on 1.8.2022, but in vain. For the intentional delay caused by the Ops in settlement of the maturity amount in respect of the policy in question, the complainant not only sustained financial loss but also suffered mental agony. Hence, this case.
3. In the present case, the OP No.1 & 2 appeared and filed their joint written version challenging the averments made in the complaint and especially cause of action and maintainability of the case. It is stated, inter alia, that the LIC policy in question was in the name of the complainant which was commenced on 28.12.1997 for assured sum of Rs.17,000/-. He had paid quarterly premium of Rs.305/- till 5/2003 and the policy was matured on 28.12.2012. The complainant has not submitted any discharge voucher or any NEFT mandate to their office for settlement of the matter. It is stated that an amount of Rs.12,175/- as maturity value is payable to the complainant subject to submission of required documents, after which the matter can be proceeded for payment of the maturity amount to him. Therefore, the question of deficiency in service does not arise at all against them.
4. OP No.3 appeared and filed his written version stating, inter alia, that the complainant is a policy holder before the OP No.1 bearing No.582490494 dated 28.12.1997 and he had applied a loan before the OP No.1 against his policy which was sanctioned and a cheque bearing No.266875 of Rs.6,000/- dated 23.12.2005 was issued in his favour. But after receipt of the above cheque, the complainant did not encashed the same and returned the above cheque to the OP No.1. In the meantime, the policy of the complainant got maturity and the complainant submitted all relevant documents to the OP No.1 for release of his maturity amount and as per his request, this OP had accompanied with him. It is further stated that if the complainant is entitled to get his claim then the OP No.1 should be held responsible for the delay in settling the same. Since there is no fault on the part of this OP in processing the claim, he cannot be made liable for deficiency in service.
5. In view of the above averments of parties, the points for determination in this case are as follows:-
(i) Whether the complainant has cause of action to file this case?
(ii) Whether this consumer case is maintainable?
(iii) Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the OPs?
(iv) Whether the complainant is entitled to get the relief, as sought for?
(v) To what other relief(s), the Complainant is entitled to?
F I N D I N G S
6. Perused the documents filed on behalf of the complainant. The complainant has filed the photocopies of certain documents viz. Premium receipt dated 28.12.1997 in respect of the policy bond in question bearing No.582490494 issued by the OP No.1 in favour of the complainant (Annexure-1), Account payee Cheque bearing No.266875 dated 23.12.2005 amounting to Rs.6,000/- issued in favour of the complainant (Annexure-2), Claim Form dated 28.12.2012 submitted by the complainant through OP No.3 which was seen to have been received by the OP No.1 (Annexure-3), Claim Form dated 1.8.2022 submitted by the complainant through OP No.3 (Annexure-4), Application dated 1.8.2022 made by the complainant in favour of OP No.1 requesting for cancellation of loan account and disbursing of maturity amount (Annexure-5), Form regarding transfer of funds through NEFT dated 1.8.2022 (Annexure-6), Aadhar Card of the complainant (Annexure-7), First page of Bank Account of the complainant bearing No.535310110002217 (Annexure-8), Online status of cancelled cheque wherein the signatures of the complainant & OP No.3 dated 28.12.2012 are appearing (Annexure-9). On the other hand, during course of hearing, learned counsel or the OP No.1 & 2 filed one photocopy of letter dated 26.4.2023 purported to have been issued by the OP No.1 in favour of the complainant (Annexure-A).
7. On a bare reading of the documents filed by the complainant from Annexure-1 to 9, it is made out that he had purchased the LIC bond bearing No.582490494 on 28.12.1997 from the OP No.1 and paid quarterly premium till 2004. As the complainant was ill, for want of money, he had applied loan before the OP No.1 against his policy bond and the OP No.1 had sanctioned a sum of Rs.6,000/- in favour of the complainant and sent the same to him in shape of A/c payee cheque bearing No.266875, but the said amount could not be encashed as on the date the complainant had no Bank Account. When the complainant opened his Account in the Bank of India, Tudigadia Branch and placed the cheque for encashment, by the date the validity of the cheque expired. So, the complainant returned the aforesaid cheque in the office of OP No.1 to one Satya Babu and at that time the OP No.3 was accompanied with him, as revealed from the written version of OP No.3. Further, it is made out that the complainant has submitted claim form on 28.12.2012 and 1.8.2022 for disbursement of maturity claim in respect of his insurance bond, but as it is seen the OP No.1 has not disbursed the amount with a note that policy bond is in loan department. It is not explained by OP No.1 as to whether the Loan Department is a separate establishment and whether the Loan Department is not under its control. If it is to be believed that the Loan Department is under the control of the OP No.1, then the OP No.1 should have been settled the matter then and there and it was not necessary to remark “the policy Bond is in Loan Department”. This shows the callousness on the part of OP No.1.
8. Further, the OP No.1 & 2 have taken their stand in Para-9 of their version that the policy holder has not submitted anything in the office of the Ops and it needs strictly to prove the contention of the complainant regarding submission of the documents before the Ops for the purpose of settlement of the claim in respect of the above mentioned policy. If that be so, then who has mentioned in the Claim Form of the complainant submitted on 28.12.2012 & 1.8.2022 (Annexure-3 & 4) before the OP No.1 that the policy Bond is in Loan Department and who has affixed the official seal of the OP No.1 on the document and to that effect no explanation is offered by OP No.1 & 2. On the other hand, OP No.3 has clearly stated in his version that he has accompanied with the complainant when the complainant had been to the OP No.1 for submission of all relevant documents for release of his maturity amount. Further, the OP No.1 & 2 have not satisfactorily explained before this Commission as to whether their office used to supply acknowledgement to all their customers at the time of filing of Claim Form for disbursement of maturity amount. Moreover, Annexure-A, the letter dated 26.4.2023 issued by the OP No.1 in favour of the complainant, shows that it has been issued by the OP No.1 on receiving the notice issued by this Commission. In this regard, not a single document is produced by the OP No.1 & 2 to prove that they have intimated the complainant prior to filing of this case and from the date of maturity of the policy bond in question i.e. from 28.12.2012 (the date of maturity) to 27.3.2023 (the date of filing of the case). From the above, it is presumed that there was no communication made to the complainant from the side of OP No.1 & 2 in respect of maturity of the policy in question and when the case was filed by the complainant, the OP No.1 & 2 have filed Annexure-A to show that they are sincere and obliged to the customers. By their above act, the complainant has not able to get his maturity value in time and in the above circumstances, suffering of mental agony and sustaining of financial loss by the complainant cannot be ignored. Therefore, it can safely be said that the OP No.1 & 2 have committed deficiency in service.
9. Besides the above, it is an admitted fact that the complainant had purchased the LIC bond in question for the sum assured Rs.17,000/- which was matured on 28.12.2012 and the complainant is entitled to get the sum assured plus bonus & other benefits available in it. But the OP No.1 & 2 have categorically stated in their version so also submitted at the time of hearing that the complainant is entitled to get Rs.12,175/- as maturity value and in that respect not a single document is filed by them to show under what circumstances they have calculated it. Admittedly, the OP No.1 had sanctioned a loan of Rs.6,000/- in favour of the complainant and sent it in shape of cheque bearing No.266875 dated 23.12.2005 which was also received by the complainant, but could not be encashed as at that time the complainant had no bank Account and on opening of Bank Account when the cheque was produced for encashment, the period of validity of the cheque was expired and the said cheque in question was returned by the complainant to the OP No.1. The said fact of returning of cheque by the complainant to OP No.1 is vividly admitted by the OP No.3 stating that he was accompanied with him to OP No.1. Further, the OP No.1 & 2 remained silent about the matter as to the fact that the complainant had retained the cheque in question with him. From the above discussion, it is held that no loan account said to have been existed against the complainant and the calculation made by the OP No.1 & 2 in respect of the maturity value payable to the complainant is held to be an erratic one.
10. From the above discussions made in the foregoing paragraphs, this Commission is of the opinion that the complainant has cause of action to file the case and the case is maintainable. Further, the O.Ps No.1 & 2 are held to be deficient in rendering their service towards the complainant. Consequently, they are jointly and severally liable for the compensation, as claimed by the complainant. At the same time, the complainant has failed to establish a case of deficiency in service against the OP No.3. Hence, the complaint is liable to be dismissed against the OP No.3.
Hence, it is ordered -
O R D E R
Having regard to the judgement reflected above, the case of the complainant be and the same is allowed on contest against the O.Ps No.1 & 2 and dismissed against OP No.3. Both the OPs No.1 & 2 are hereby directed to:-
- disburse the sum assured in respect of the policy No.582490494 along with other available benefits, to the complainant with interest @ 12% per annum, from 28.12.2012 till its actual disbursement.
- pay a sum of Rs.20,000/-, to the complainant, towards compensation for mental agony, harassment & litigation cost.
All the aforesaid awarded amounts shall be paid by the O.Ps No.1 & 2 to the complainant within 45 days from the date of receipt of this order, failing which the complainant is at liberty to realize the same from the O.Ps No.1 & 2 through the process of law.
Pronounced in the open court of this Commission, this the 3rd day of December, 2024 under my signature & seal of the Commission.
