Karnataka

Kolar

CC/15/2018

Sri.M.C.Muniswamaiah - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Dist Superintendent of Police - Opp.Party(s)

29 Sep 2018

ORDER

Date of Filing: 03/03/2018

Date of Order: 29/09/2018

BEFORE THE KOLAR DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, D.C. OFFICE PREMISES, KOLAR.

 

Dated: 29^th DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2018

PRESENT

SRI. K.N. LAKSHMINARAYANA, B.Sc., LLB., PRESIDENT

SMT. A.C. LALITHA, BAL, LLB.,  ……  LADY MEMBER

 

CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO. 15 OF 2018

Sri. M.C. Muniswamaiah,

ARSI (REtd.),

Aged About 60 Years,

H/o. G.N. Manjula (Nominee),

Manjunatha Nilaya, Masti Layout,

Near Shankar Vidyalaya,

Bangarpet Road,

Kolar-563 101.                                                 ….  COMPLAINANT.

(In-person)

 

- V/s -

1) The District Superintendent Of Police,

Dharawad District, Dharwad.

(Rep. by Sri.C.S.N.,  Government Pleader)

 

2) The Manager,

LIC Of India, Dharwad.

(Rep. by Sri. A.V.Ananda, Advocate)

 

3) The Manager,

LIC Of India, Navalagunda Branch,

Dharwad District.

(Rep. by Sri. A.V.Ananda, Advocate)

 

4) The Manager,

LIC Of India, Kolar.

(Rep. by Sri. A.V.Ananda, Advocate)                                   …. OPPOSITE PARTIES.

-: ORDER:-

BY SRI. K.N. LAKSHMINARAYANA, PRESIDENT,

01.   The complainant in-person has filed this complaint Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 for issuance of directions to the Drawing Officer, The office of the District Superintendent of Police, Dharwad, to send the LIC premium amount deducted from the salary of the complainant vide policy No.64394140 from 28.08.1982 to 05.05.1987, to LIC of India, Dharwad and to pay compensation of Rs.20,000/- and allow the complaint.

 

02.   The brief facts of the complainant case is that, on 28.08.1982 he was selected as constable Reserve Police of Dharwad District and he served about 5 years at Dharwad and retired from service on 31.07.2017 at Kolar.  During this tenure a sum of Rs.33.80 was deducted on every month from his salary towards LIC policy bearing No.64394140.  After his retirement, he has addressed a letter to LIC of India, Dharwad, to get the maturity amount and so also to Superintendent of Police, Dharwad.  The superintendent of police, Dharwad has given reply on 30.12.2017 stating that, out of 05 years 04 months deduction was made towards the LIC policy.  The drawing officer of District Superintendent of Police, Dharwad, deducted the amount towards LIC premium from 1982 to 1987 on every month and stated only 04 months deduction was made and thereby there is a deficiency of service.  He has produced pay slip dated: 05.05.1987 in that document they have shown deduction of Rs.33,80 towards LIC policy bearing No.64394140.  From 1982 to 1987 he was receiving the salary by the drawing officer by cash and his salary was Rs.1,282/- and out of that amount they deducted Rs.33.80 towards LIC policy.  He has lost his LIC bond and he has given affidavit to that effect dated: 23.02.2008 to the drawing officer and prays to allow the complaint.

 

03.   OP No.1 has appeared through his counsel and filed version and contended that, the complaint is not maintainable either in law or on facts and the same deserves to be dismissed.  The OP No.1 after receiving requisition from the complainant they thoroughly searched the entire records i.e., long roll book with regard to LIC policy No.64394140 and after verification they have given endorsement that, only from 01.01.1987 to 01.04.1987 i.e., for 04 months the amount was deducted towards LIC policy of Rs.33.80 paisa and the same was intimated to the complainant.  The copy of the long roll book was sent to the complainant and in spite of that, the complainant has made this false allegation and filed this false complaint before this Forum.  The contention of the complainant that, he has paid Rs.33.80 paisa from 01.01.1983 to 01.01.1985 is false and put the complainant to strict proof of the same.  The complainant has not approached this Forum with clean hands and filed this complaint to harass the OP and prays to dismiss the complaint in the ends of justice and equity.

 

04.   OP Nos.2 to 4 filed version and the Administrative Officer, LIC of India, Bangalore, has filed version and contended that, the complaint is not maintainable either in law or on facts and liable to be dismissed.  The averments made in Para -1 & 2 of the complaint is not known to these Ops and the same is put to strict proof of the same.  Ops denied Para-3 in toto as false and put the complainant to prove the same.  The OP has stated that, the complainant has admitted that, the OP No.1 has submitted the premium recovery particulars for 04 months from January-1987 to April-1987 only and not for 05 years.  The OP has not furnished full particulars of premium recovery for all the 05 years, and there is no deficiency of service on the part of the said Ops and the said complaint has filed after lapse of 09 years.  As the complainant himself has submitted a copy of letter dated: 28.10.2008 addressed to Dharwad Branch Office in which he has admitted that, the cause of action arise during October-2008 itself and prays for dismissal of the complaint.

 

05.   The complainant has filed his affidavit by way of examination-in-chief.  The Administrative Officer of Legal & HPF Department, Divisional Office-II, LIC of India, Bangalore, has submitted its affidavit by way of examination-in-chief.  OP No.1 did not lead evidence on their side.  During the pendency of the case OP No.2 to 4 have settled the dispute with the complainant by filing Memo dated: 28.08.2018.

 

06.   Heard the oral arguments of complainant.  OP No.1 did not address arguments in spite of taking sufficient time. 

 

07.   Now the Points that do arise for our consideration are that:-

POINT NO.1:-  Whether the complainant is

entitled for the compensation as

prayed by him?

 

POINT NO.2:-  What order?

 

08.   Our findings on the above points are as under:-

        POINT NO.1:-  Partly Affirmative

        POINT NO.2:-  As per the final order

for the following

REASONS

09.   POINT NO.1:-  The complainant has filed this complaint for issuance of directions to the Drawing Officer, The office of the District Superintendent of Police, Dharwad, to send the LIC premium amount deducted from the salary of the complainant vide policy No.64394140 from 28.08.1982 to 05.05.1987, to LIC of India, Dharwad and to pay compensation of Rs.20,000/- and allow the complaint.  On perusal of the complaint it revealed that, the complainant was appointed as constable Reserve Police, Dharwad District on 28.08.1982.  The complainant has served at Dharwad till 28.04.1987 as per the L.P.C. dated: 05.05.1987 and thereafter he was transferred to Kolar and he was retired on 31.07.2017 at Kolar.  The complainant has contended that, during his service at Dharwad a sum of Rs.33.80 paisa was deducted towards his LIC policy bearing No.64394140 from his salary and at that time the Drawing Officer used to give the salary by cash by deducting a sum of Rs.33.80 paisa on every month.  But to support the said fact the complainant has not at all produced any document and so also he has not produced pay-slip for the said period.  However during the pendency of the case OP Nos.2 to 4 settled the dispute with the complainant by filing Memo dated: 28.08.2018 before this Forum by giving DD for Rs.3,165/- in the name of the complainant and the case against OP Nos.2 to 4 was dismissed in view of the said Joint Memo. 

 

10.   Now the only question arise with respect to compensation of Rs.20,000/- claimed by the complainant.  The complainant has filed this complaint on 03.03.2018.  The OP No.1 was appeared on 06.04.2018 before the Forum and later on filed their version through the counsel with Xerox copies of the documents by denying the claim of the complainant and produced Xerox copy of the document for non-deduction of premium amount towards LIC policy of the complainant for the period at Dharwad.  But the OP No.1 has not at all lead their evidence and so also they have not at all produced original or Xerox copy of the long roll book from 28.08.1982 to 25.04.1987 and so also not produced pay-slip of the complainant for the above said period and OP No.1 has with hold the material document before this forum and made the complainant to wait for so long to decide the dispute and the complainant has suffered lot of mental agony and hence the complainant is entitled for compensation by OP No.1.  The said amount claimed by the complainant towards compensation is on the higher side.  Depending upon the facts and circumstances of the case on hand we hold that, the complainant is entitled a sum of Rs.2,000/- towards compensation and Rs.500/- towards litigation charges.  Hence as discussed above we answer this point is in partly affirmative.

 

11.   POINT NO.2:-  In view of our findings on Point No.1 and the discussions made thereon, we proceed to pass the following:-

ORDER

01.   The complaint filed by the complainant is partly allowed.  The OP No.1 is directed to pay a sum of Rs.2,000/- towards compensation and Rs.500/- towards litigation expenses to the complainant within 30 days from the date of pronouncement of this order.

02.   Send a copy of this order to both parties free of cost.

(Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and then pronounced by us on this 29^th DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2018)

 

 

LADY MEMBER                                PRESIDENT