BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION AT BANGALORE (URBAN)

DATED 14^TH DAY OF JULY 2023

ORDER

SMT.M.SHOBHA, PRESIDENT

1. The complaint has been filed under Section 35 of C.P.Act (hereinafter referred as an Act) against the OP for the following reliefs against the OP:-

1. To direct the Ops to pay maturity policy amount to the complainant on the sum assured amount of Rs.10,000/-  paid by the complainant to the Ops, apart from that direct the Ops to pay Rs.50,000/- and Rs.50,000/- towards loss of happiness, harassment, mental agony etc., in total sum of Rs.20,10,000/-.
2. Order to pay cost of this proceedings.
3. Grant such other reliefs as this Hon’ble Commission deems fit to grant in the interest of justice and equity.

2. The case set up by the complainant in brief is as under:-

The complainant has obtained the LIC policy from the OP bearing No.610301105 commencing from 28.10.1986 to 28.10.2011. Sum assured for Rs.10,000/- premium of Rs.35/- and the said policy was matured during the year 2011.

3. It is further case of the complainant that he has been paying the policy premium amount to LIC of India regularly without fail and the same was ended during the year 2011. After completion of the LIC policy premium the complainant has been requesting opponent authorities and also other concerned authorities to pay the policy amount.  At that time the OP authorities have informed the complainant that the said policy stands in others name and not in the name of the complainant and hence they could not able to release the matured policy amount.  The complainant on several times personally visited and enquired his matured LIC policy and visited the office of the OP situated at Basavanagudi, Bangalore and he has also submitted the original policy bond No.610301105. Finally the complainant has approached and submitted his original policy bond at Kasturba Road, Bangalore. They have raised the objection on 22.07.2021 by saying that he has not remitted the amount properly of every month premium. The complainant has also furnished the payment slips/acquaintance extract since from 1992 to till his clearance of said LIC policy premium and the LIC premium amount was deducted from the complainant salary and remitted to State Huzur Treasury, every month.  
4. The complainant has issued written letters to his authorities wherein the Ops have not properly responding to the complainant since the complainant has good hope paid the premium amount which was deducted from his salary every month but till today the Ops have not paid the matured amount. The Ops have failed to perform their part of obligations and they have neglected to perform their legal and lawful duty in payment of matured LIC policy amount to the complainant till today.  The complainant has also got issued legal notice on 15.09.2022 to the OP1 and 16.09.2022 the notice served by hand on 21.09.2022 and hence the same was duly served to OP1 and 2. Even after service of notice the Ops have sent untenably reply on 13.09.2022 by giving vague answers and they have failed to perform their part of obligations as they failed to pay the matured policy amount.  Hence the complainant prayed for allow of the complainant.
5. In response to the notice, OPs appeared and files version. It is the case of the OP that the complaint is barred by limitation. As per the claim made in respect of the policy No.610301105 it is seen that the date of maturity of the policy is 28.10.2011. Hence the cause of action to file the above complaint on 28.10.2011. As such the complainant ought to have filed the complaint within two years from 28.10.2011. The complainant has filed this complaint on 17.11.2022 after lapse of 11 years from the date of cause of action. Hence the complaint is hopelessly barred by limitation as contemplated u/s 69 of the C.P. act 2019.
6. It is further case of the OP that the complainant’s claim admittedly pertains to the year 2011. The complainant has approached this OP on 22.07.2021. the complainant knowing very well that the Ops will not have any records with them as the same is kept by the Ops for only eight years as per sec 209(4A) of the companies act 1956. The complainant has now thought fit to file this above false case after lapse of 11 years to harass these Ops and make wrongful gain from the Ops.
7. It is further case of the OP that after looking to policy No.610301105 and other papers submitted by the complainant Ops informed the complainant that the policy is of the year 1986 and matured in the year 2011 and many premiums are unpaid and after verification of the records regarding payment of premium the claim will be processed.  Since supportive records of the alleged claim is not available with the Ops the alleged claim made by the complainant after lapse of 11 years could not be completed.
8. It is further case of the OP that as per the documents submitted by the complainant he has not paid the premium regularly every month from 1986 to 2011 in respect of the policy.  Hence as per clause 5 of the policy terms, the policy has lapsed and as such on merits also the complainant is also not entitled to claim any amount under the policy.
9. It is further case of the OP that the bulky records now produced alleged to be towards payment of premium cannot be looked into by this commission in summary proceedings as the matter involves complicated question of calculation of account and details of payment of premium from 1986 to 2011 for 35 years. The remedy if any of the complainant is to approach the civil case and prove his case by leading detailed evidence to prove claim regarding payment of premium for 35 years.  The complainant has made all imaginary claims for Rs.20 lakhs in respect of the policy of sum assured amount of Rs.10,000/- for which there is no basis.  Therefore the Ops prayed for dismissal of the complainant.
10. The complainant has filed his affidavit evidence and relies on 11 documents.  Affidavit evidence of official of OP has been filed and OP relies on 02 documents.

11. Heard the arguments of advocate for both the parties.  Perused the written arguments filed by both the parties.

12. The following points arise for our consideration as are:-

1. Whether the complainant proves deficiency of service on the part of OP?
2. Whether the complainant is entitled to relief mentioned in the complaint?
3. What order?

13. Our answers to the above points are as under:

Point No.1:  Affirmative

Point No.2: Affirmative in part

Point No.3: As per final orders

REASONS

14. Point No.1 AND 2: These two points are inter related and hence they have taken for common discussion.  We have perused the allegations made in the complaint, version, affidavit evidence and documents filed by both the parties.
15. The complainant has obtained LIC policy from the OP bearing policy No.610301105 commencing from 28.10.1986 to 28.10.2011, sum assured for Rs.10,000/- and premium of Rs.35/- and the said policy was matured during the year 2011. 
16. In support of his contention the complainant has produced copy of policy as Ex.P1. it is clear from the Ex.P1 that the complainant has obtained the above policy with date of commencement from 28.10.1986 and the sum assured was Rs.10,000/- and the maturity date is fixed as 28.09.2011  after attaining the age of 56 years.  The policy stands in the name of complainant. The policy was issued when the complainant was working as a Second Division Clerk in the office of the food and civil supplies, government of Karnataka, Bangalore, it was issued on 20.11.1986.  
17. It is further grievance of the complainant that ever since form the date of obtaining the said policy the complainant has been paying the policy premium amount to the OP regularly without fail and the same was ended during the year 2011.  In support of his contention the complainant has produced the copy of original salary acquaintance role extract from Deputy Director, Food and civil supplies, south range, Bangalore, dated 18.06.2022 in LIC policy No.610301105 and another acquaintance role dated 02.07.2022 and another acquaintance role extract dated 01.08.2022 and another acquaintance dated 22.08.2022 in order to show the monthly deduction of premium amount from his salary from 28.08.1986 to 28.11.2011 as per Ex.P6.
18. It is further grievance of the complainant that after completion of the LIC policy premium the complainant has requested the Ops and other concerned authorities to pay the policy amount, he has also produced copy of the claim form dated 28.10.2011 along with application KYC cancelled cheque, aadhar and pan card as per Ex.P2 and P3 for having sent the claim form to the OP. At that time the Ops have informed the complainant that the said policy stands in others name and not in the name of the complainant and hence they are unable to release the matured policy amount. After that the complainant has personally visited and enquired his matured policy and visited the OP division office at J.C.Road, Bangalore, and he also submitted original policy bond. At that time also they have raised objection on 22.07.2021 saying that this complainant has not remitted the amount properly of every month premium.  The complainant has also produced the acknowledgement issued by the OP after receiving all the original bond and claim form KYC as Ex.P4. The complainant has also furnished the payment slips/acquaintance extract from 1982 till his clearance of the policy as per Ex.P6 and it clearly discloses that premium amount was deducted from the complainant salary and remitted to State Huzur Treasury every month.
19. The complainant approached the OP and gone to Ops office on several times and requested them for payment of the matured amount. But the Ops have not properly responded to the complainant. But the Ops have not responded and made any payment even in the year 2021 after lapse of 10 years. After that the complainant has issued legal notice on 13.09.2022 as Ex.P7 and the same was served to the OP1 as per Ex.P8 and P9 the postal receipt and RPAD acknowledgement.
20. After that the OP2 issued reply on 13.09.2022 stating that the policy of the complainant is a very old policy started in the year 1986 and matured in the year 2011 as per the present status many premiums are unpaid. It was serviced by other branches also. They have written letters for verification to the respective branches for verification of receipt of premium which are unpaid as per records.  They have written letters calling upon details of premium deducted from the pay drawing officer, also on receipt of the details they will process the claim.
21. Even after received the reply the complainant has contacted the OP office on several times. When they have failed to respond to the grievance of the complainant the complainant was forced to approach this Commission by filing this complaint.
22. On the other hand the contention taken by the OP is that the complaint is barred by limitation as per the policy bond the date of maturity of the policy is 28.10.2011. The complaint would have filed by the complainant within 2 years from 28.10.2011 but he has filed the complaint after lapse of 11 years from the date of cause of action the complaint is hopelessly barred by limitation as per sec 69 of the C.P. Act. 
23. In support of their contention they have also relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in AIR 2009 SC 2210 State Bank of India –vs- B.S. Agricultural Industries.
24. It is further case of the OP that the complainant has approached this OP on 22.07.2021 knowing very well that they are not having any records of the policy with them as the same is kept by the Ops only for eight years as per sec 209(4A) of the Companies Act 1956.  The complainant has filed this false case after lapse of 11 years just to harass Ops and make unlawful gain.
25. It is further case of the OP that they have informed the complainant to produce the supportive records since the supportive records of the alleged claim is not available with the Ops.
26. It is further case of the OP that the complainant has not paid the premium every month regularly from 1986 to 2011 in respect of the policy. Hence as per clause 5 of the policy terms, the policy has lapsed and hence the complainant is not entitled to claim any amount under the policy.
27. It is further case of the OP that the bulky records produced by the complainant cannot be looked into by this commission in summary proceedings as the matter involves complicated question of calculation of account and details of payment of premium from 1986 to 2011 for 35 years. The remedy if any of the complainant is to approach the civil court and prove his case by leading detailed evidence to prove claim regarding payment of premium for 35 years.  The complainant has made all imaginary claims for Rs.20 lakhs in respect of the policy of sum assured amount of Rs.10,000/- for which there is no basis.
28. The Ops have produced only two documents i.e., only extract of sec 209(4A) of the companies act 1956 and AIR 2009, Supreme Court 2210.
29. It is clear from the evidence and the documents placed before this Commission by both the parties. There is no dispute that the complainant has obtained the policy as per Ex.P1. The complainant has paid the premium amount from 1986 till the maturity of the policy in the year 2011 as per Ex.P6 the acquaintance role placed before this Commission. The complainant has also send a claim form as per Ex.P2 and P3 immediately after the maturity of the claim to the OP and also received the acknowledgement as per Ex.P4. Even though the Ops have received the claim form filed by the complainant dated 28.10.2011 itself they have not at all taken any steps to pay the matured amount in favour of the complainant.  The complainant has waited till November 2022.  The Ops have not made any effort or responded to the complainant for payment of the maturity amount even after lapse of 11 years. After that the complainant has issued the legal notice. They have also issued a reply only stating that they are not having the records as they will not keep the documents for more than 8 years and they have destroyed the records. They have to collect the information from other branches and on receipt of the details they will process the same.
30. Even though the complainant has made effort to get the matured amount by sending the claim form immediately one month earlier to the maturity of the claim on 28.10.2011 itself. Ops have also issued the acknowledgement. Instead of taking action for payment of the matured amount, the Ops have made the complainant to move from pillar to post for more than 11 years.  After that they have taken the contention that they have to collect the records from other branches and they will process the claim after receiving the information.
31. The conduct of the Ops clearly discloses that they are negligent and lethargic and not even care to release the matured to a government servant and they have made the life of the complainant miserable.  Even though the complainant is a government servant and having the details of the deductions of the premium amount from his salary, the Ops have not at all taken into consideration any of the documents with the malafide intention and finally they have not responded to the complainant.  If the Ops have considered the documents produced by the complainant i.e., the acquaintance role of the complainant and the letters issued by the drawing officers, they would have paid the maturity amount immediately after maturity of the policy. Instead of considering the claim of the complainant the Ops have made the complainant to run from office to office of the Ops in order to receive his legitimate claim.
32. The decision cited by the OP is not at all applicable to the facts and circumstances in this case. The cause of action to file this complaint to the complainant will exist till he receives the matured amount of his policy from the OP and hence the claim is not at all barred by limitation. The Ops cannot swallow the legitimate amount of the complainant by giving one or the reason and drag the matter for more than 11 to 12 years. Under these circumstances the complainant is entitle for the maturity amount with interest at 12% p.a., from the date of maturity till the realization.  The Ops are further liable to pay compensation of Rs.50,000/- for the delay and deficiency of service, negligence and their lethargic attitude in the payment of maturity amount to a government servant. Hence the complainant has clearly established the deficiency in service and negligence and the financial loss and mental agony caused to him. Hence we answer point No.1 in affirmative and point No.2 partly in affirmative.
33. Point No.3:- In view the discussion referred above we proceed to pass the following;

O R D E R

1. The complaint is allowed in part.
2. OP is directed to pay the maturity policy amount to the complainant, on the sum assured amount of Rs.10,000/- to the complainant with interest at 12% p.a., from the date of maturity till the realization. 
3. The Ops are further directed to pay compensation of Rs.50,000/- with litigation expenses of Rs.20,000/- to the complainant.
4. The OP shall comply this order within 60 days from this date, failing which the OP shall pay interest at 15% p.a. after expiry of 60 days on maturity amount of Rs.10,000/- till realization.
5. Furnish the copy of this order and return the extra pleadings and documents to the parties.

(Dictated to the Stenographer, got it transcribed and corrected, pronounced in the Open Commission on this 14^TH day of JULY, 2023)

Documents produced by the Complainant-P.W.1 are as follows:

Documents produced by the representative of opposite party – R.W.1;