District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum

Dakshin Dinajpur, W. Bengal

(Old Sub-Jail Municipal Market Complex, 2^nd Floor, Balurghat Dakshin Dinajpur Pin - 733101)

Telefax: (03522)-270013

Present          

Shri Sambhunath Chatterjee              - President

Miss. Swapna Saha                            - Member

Shri Siddhartha Ganguli                      - Member

Consumer Complaint No. 33/2015

Prabhat Mahanta

S/o Naren Mohanta

Mobile No.9434513185

Vill.: Khadimpur (School Para),

PO & PS: Balurghat

Dist. Dakshin Dinajpur-733101        …………………Complainant(s)

V-E-R-S-U-S

1.  The Divisional Manager,

     Micro Insurance Unit, Life Insurance Corporation of India

     Jalpaiguri Divisional Office, ‘Jeevan Prakash’ Building, 2^nd Floor,

     Vill.: Shantipara, PO & PS : Jalpaiguri

     Dist.: Jalpaiguri - 735101  

2.  Senior Divisional Manager,

     Life Insurance Corporation of India

     Jalpaiguri Divisional Office, ‘Jeevan Prakash’ Building,

     Vill.: Shantipara, PO & PS : Jalpaiguri

     Dist.: Jalpaiguri - 735101  

3.  Sujit Kundu S/o Late Ajit Kr. Kundu,

     Branch in Charge, Jeevan Madhur Plan Office of UDGHRW,

     Balurghat Branch

Resident at -

     Vill.: Bainkunthapur (Near Simanta Shikha Club),

     PO & PS : Hili

     Dist.: Dakshin Dinajpur – 733126  ……………Opposite Parties

Ld. Advocate(s):

For complainant          …………… - Shri Santanu Dey

For OP Nos. 1 & 2      …………… - Shri Dibakar Bhattacharya

For OP No. 3              …………… - Shri Pradipta Kiran Sarkar,

Date of Filing                                       : 26.06.2015

Date of Disposal                                 : 17.03.2016

                                                                                                Contd…P/2

Judgment & Order  dt. 17.03.2016

            The case of the complainant is that the complainant purchased one policy of LIC’s Jeevan Madhur from Jeevan Madhur Plan Office of UDGHRW, Balurghat Branch of “LIC of India- R045 Micro In” being the policy No.455611554 DoC dt. 14.02.2009 with a condition to pay Rs.100/- per month against the said policy for the period of 6 (six) years. The policy was issued by Life Insurance Corporation of India under Jalpaiguri Division.

            The complainant paid 51 premiums @ Rs.100/- per month i.e. Rs.5,100/- in total as premium up to April, 2013 and due to financial stringency the complainant failed to pay rest premiums upto 72 months i.e. for the period of 6 years against the said policy. The complainant paid premiums against the said policy for consecutive 51 months i.e. for more than 4 years. From the premium receipts statement of LICI Micro Insurance Jeevan Praksh, It is found that the LICI acknowledged 40 premiums against the premiums paid by the complainant of 51 premiums.

            The complainant after coming to know of the said fact wrote a letter on 27.5.2014 asking the OPs in writing as to why the entire deposited premiums of 51 was not mentioned in the statement but only it was mentioned 40 premiums were paid. After completion of 6 years the LICI informed the complainant that the LICI will pay Rs.4,065/- to the complainant. Since, OPs in spite of receiving 51 premiums denied to have received the premiums of Rs.5,100/-, therefore, a notice was issued on behalf of the complainant demanding the said amount.

            In view of the said fact that the complainant has prayed for compensation Rs. 90,000/- as well as 5,100/- amount paid by the complainant along with interest @10.2% per month on and from 14.2.2015.

                                                                                                Contd…P/3

            The OP Nos. 1 & 2 contested the case by filing a written version whereby they denied all the material allegations made by the complainant. It was stated that as per office record the complainant paid 42 monthly premiums against the said policy instead of 51 installments. Accordingly, LICI sent discharge voucher to the complainant asking him to submit the same after execution along with other requirements for settlement of maturity claim. But the complainant did not submit the discharge voucher for which the maturity claim could not be settled as such no deficiency in service was made on the part of LICI. Since, the claim made by the complainant is a false one, therefore, the OPs prayed for dismissal of the case.

            OP No. 3 also contested this case by filing a written objection whereby it was mentioned that the OP No. 3 is the authorized collection agent of Jeevan Madhur from Jeevan Madhur Plan Office of UDGHRW, Balurghat Branch of LIC of India to collect the premiums against the Jeevan Madhur, vide Table No. 182 (Micro Insurance of LICI). OP No. 3 never collected any amount from the complainant and he is not liable to pay the amount. It was specifically stated that the OP Nos. 1 & 2 received the premiums and they are liable to pay money to the complainant. It was also stated that the complainant deposited the premiums to the OP Nos.  1&2 LICI.

            In view of the said fact that the OP No. 3 has prayed for exemption of any liability regarding the payment of money to the complainant.

            On the basis of pleadings of respective parties following points are to be determined :-

1. Was the complainant a policyholder of Jeevan Madhur under the OP Nos. 1 &2?
2. Has the complainant paid 42 or 51 installments?
3. Has the complainant failed to show the receipts that he deposited 51 installments?

                                                                                                Contd…P/4

4. Was the amount received by the OP No. 3 towards the premium from the complainant and he failed to deposit the same to the LIC of India?

5. Was there any deficiency in service on the part of the LICI?
6. Is the complainant entitled to get relief as prayed for?

DECISION  WITH REASONS

            All the points are taken together for avoidance of repetition of facts.

            Ld. Lawyer for the complainant submits that the complainant purchased one policy known as Jeevan Madhur policy from Jeevan Madhur Plan Office of UDGHRW, Balurghat Branch of LIC of India and there is no dispute regarding holding of the policy by the complainant since, OP Nos. 1 & 2 admitted in the written version that the complainant had the Jeevan Madhur policy at the relevant point of time. Apart from the said fact that the complainant has also filed original policy to corroborate the claim of the complainant that he is a policyholder of Jeevan Madhur of LICI. Ld. Lawyer emphasized that in order to prove that the complainant paid 51 installments @ Rs.100/- per month and some receipts have been filed, which proved that the complainant deposited Rs.5,100/- in total as premium upto April, 2013. Since the complainant had financial stringency the complainant failed to pay premium upto 72 months i.e. upto the period of 6 years but the complainant paid the premium more than 4 years and ultimately the complainant demanded the amount and approached the LICI Micro Insurance. In response to the said demand a discharge voucher was issued by OP Nos. 1 & 2 in the name of the complainant amounting to Rs.4,065/-. Since the complainant deposited Rs.5,100/- and the amount of OP No. 1 & 2 wanted to pay Rs. 4,065/-, therefore, the complainant had to file this case praying for compensation as well as return of the money.

                                                                                                Contd…P/5

            Ld. Lawyer for the OP No. 1& 2 argued that the LICI received 42 monthly installments in stead of 51 installments as claimed by the complainant. Accordingly the OP LICI sent discharge voucher to the complainant asking him to submit the same after execution along with other requirements for the settlement of maturity claim but the complainant did not submit the discharge voucher for which the maturity claim could not be settled and accordingly there was no deficiency in service on the part of LICI. In view of the said fact that Ld. Lawyer for the OP No. 1&2 prayed for no compensation should be awarded against the OP No. 1 & 2. Since there was no deficiency in service on the part of LICI.

            Ld. Lawyer for the OP No. 3 argued that the OP No. 3 was authorized to collect the premium amount on and from 25.3.2013 but the entire transaction was held prior to that date, therefore, OP No. 3 cannot be held responsible to receive the money from the complainant and it was not deposited to LICI. Ld. Lawyer for the OP No. 3 pointed out that the wife of the complainant was the agent who used to collect the premium from different policyholders and if she failed to deposit the money to the LICI, the LICI cannot be held liable to pay the amount, on the contrary, the complainant should demand the money from his wife who acted as an agent and she used to collect the money from different policyholders at the relevant point of time.

            Considering the submission of respective parties and on perusal of materials on record that we found that the complainant was the policyholder of Jeevan Madhur of LICI and he paid the premiums @ Rs.100/- though he claimed that he paid Rs.5,100/- by paying 51 installment with Rs.100/- each but LICI stated that from the documents available in the office it is found that the complainant paid 42 installment i.e. the complainant paid Rs. 4,200/- and the LICI is liable to pay the said amount.

                                                                                                Contd…P/6

            From the submission of respective parties it is crystal clear that immediately after the expression of the complainant to get back the amount a discharge certificate was issued by the LICI and because of non-compliance of requirements for execution of necessary documents from the side of the complainant the LICI could not pay the amount. In view of the said fact that we hold that there is no deficiency in service on the part of OP No. 1 & 2 LICI. So far as the liability of OP No. 3 is concerned that it is found from the appointment letter issued by the LICI that he was appointed on 25.3.2013 but the entire transaction took place prior to the appointment of said OP No. 3, therefore, he cannot be held liable to pay the remaining amount of Rs.900/-. It transpires from the materials on record that the wife of the complainant acted as an agent and he falsely made claim against the OP No. 1 & 2 instead of making his wife as a party to this case, the complainant by making false story has claimed the amount from the LICI and on failure to get the said amount from LICI, the complainant has claimed the amount from the OP No. 3. Since, the complainant has not come with clean hands and he did not lodge any criminal case against his wife for not depositing the amount to OP No. 1 & 2 and by manufacturing story has claimed the amount of Rs.5,100/- as such we hold that no compensation or damage can be claimed by the complainant. Since, his conduct is not fair to file the case before this Forum and we are not inclined to give any relief by way of awarding compensation to him.

            Accordingly, all the points are disposed of.

            Hence, it is

                                                O R D E R E D

            that the instant petition of complaint is allowed in part against the OP No. 1 & 2. The OP No. 1 & 2 are directed to issue an account payee cheque of Rs.4,200/- in the name of the complainant within 60 days from this day failing which complainant will also get 8% interest p.a. on the said amount till realization.

                                                                                                Contd…P/7

            Let a plain copy of this order be furnished to the parties forthwith free of cost and compliance.

            Dictated & corrected

            ………………..….…….                                                         

            (Sambhunath Chatterjee)                                                      

                President                                                                

            We concur,

            ………...……                                                  ………….……..

              (S. Saha)                                                            (S. Ganguli) 

               Member                                                                Member

1. Date when free copy was issued                         ……………………
2. Date of application for certified copy       ……………………
3. Date when copy was made ready            ……………………
4. Date of delivery                                        ……………………

FREE COPY [Reg. 18(6)]

1. Mode of dispatch                                ……………………
2. Date of dispatch                                  ……………………

-x-