The Divisional Manager LIC V/S Smt.Saraswati W/o Late Thippanna - Consumer Court Case

Karnataka

Raichur

DCFR 49/07

Smt.Saraswati W/o Late Thippanna - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Divisional Manager LIC - Opp.Party(s)

Mallangouda

30 Nov 2007

ORDER

DIST. CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM
DIST. CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,DC Office Compound, Sath Kacheri
consumer case(CC) No. DCFR 49/07

Smt.Saraswati W/o Late Thippanna						...........Appellant(s)
Vs.
The Branch Manager LIC The Divisional Manager LIC The General Manager Hutti Gold Mines						...........Respondent(s)

BEFORE:

Complainant(s)/Appellant(s):

OppositeParty/Respondent(s):

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended

Highly recommended!

5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended

Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.

ORDER

This is a complaint filed U/s. 12 of Consumer Protection Act by the complainant Smt. Saraswati against the two Respondents (1) Divisional Manager LIC of India, Raichur (2) Branch Manager Life Insurance Corporation of India. Branch Office Sindhanoor, and (3) The General Manager Hutti Gold Mines Company Ltd., Hutti, Tq. Lingasugur. The brief facts of the complaint are as under: The complainant is the legally wedded wife of Tippanna who was an employee working as under ground labour bearing Token No. 1936 under the employment of Respondent No-3 Hutti Gold Mines Company Ltd., Hutti. During his service he had obtained (4) LIC policies from Respondent No-2 under salary saving scheme namely Policy No. (1) 661238629 dt. 25-02-02 for assured sum of Rs. 40,000/- for a period of (25) years, (2) 661366999 dt. 15-03-02 for assured sum of Rs. 40,000/- for a period of (25) years, (3) 661414999 dt. 28-05-03 for assured sum of Rs. 40,000/- for a period of (20) years, (4) 661415450 dt. 14-08-03 for assured sum of Rs. 50,000/- for a period of (15) years. Respondent No-3 had undertaken for making the payment of premium amount of the above said policies to the Respondent No.2, out of salary amount of said Tippanna. The said Tippanna died on 01-06-06 leaving behind him the complainant as his legal heir and nominee of the said policies. After his death of the complainant made several requests to Respondent No- 1 & 2 for making payment of the above said policies and also made request to Respondent NO-1 vide letter dt. 10-05-07 along with required papers has sent through Courier Service. In-spite of service of said letter Respondent No-1 has not taken any steps to settle her claim. Hence she got issued legal notice through her counsel on 25-06-07 by RPAD and in-spite of service of the said notice, the Respondents neither settled her claim nor replied to her notice, which amounts to deficiency of service on the part of the Respondents. Hence for all these reasons she has sought for direction to the Respondents No. 1 & 2 to make payment of LIC policy amount along with bonus interest and other benefits and also for Rs. 20,000/- towards damages and cost for deficiency of service. 2. The Respondents 1 to 3 appeared through their respective counsel. Respondent No-1 has filed written version which has been adopted by Respondent No-2 through memo. Respondent No-3 has filed a separate written version. In the written statement the Respondents 1 & 2 have admitted that late Tippanna the life assured had taken (4) policies under salary saving scheme and he had taken one more policy bearing No. 661450931 which is in lapsed condition and no amount is payable. These Respondents have only received the death intimation which was suitably replied to the complainant but they have not received any claim forms and other requirements for further process of the claim. No repudiation is made regarding policy as such the complaint filed by the complainant is pre-mature and there is no cause of action. Hence for all these reasons the Respondents No- 1 & 2 have sought for dismissal of the complaint. 3. Respondent NO-3 has filed written version contending that they have regularly remitted the premiums of late Tippanna to the LIC whenever his wages is sufficient. Thereafter non-availability of sufficient wages the premium could not be remitted to the LIC. The said fact was being regularly informed to the employee when he took his monthly wage-slip. The Respondent NO-3 Hutti Gold Mines Company could not deduct premium regularly from the salary of the employee because his earnings were not enough to recover the LIC premium since deductions are to be made on the basis of priority as per the provisions under Payment of Wages Act. Therefore the Hutti Gold Mines Company Ltd., is neither negligent nor violated any alleged undertaking given to LIC as such the company is not liable either for damages or compensation as sought for. Hence for all these reasons Respondent No-3 has sought for dismissal of the complaint against this Respondent No-3. 4. During the course of enquiry the complainant has filed her sworn-affidavit by way of examination-in-chief. In-rebuttal on behalf of Respondent No- 1 & 2 the sworn-affidavit of Respondent No-1 is filed by way of examination-in-chief. Similarly the sworn-affidavit of Respondent No-3 is filed by way of examination-in-chief. In these affidavit-evidence they have reiterated their stand in the complaint and written version respectively. The complainant has filed (7) documents at Ex.P-1 to P-7 which are attested Xerox copy of (4) LIC policies, Death certificate of Tippanna, Office copy of letter of complainant dt. 10-05-07 with four courier receipts and office copy of legal notice dt. 25-06-07 with postal receipts and postal acknowledgement. The Respondents No. 1 & 2 have filed photo-stat copy of letter dt. 17-07-07 at Ex.R-1. The Respondent NO-3 has not filed any documents. 5. Heard the arguments of both sides and perused the records. The following points arise for our consideration and determination: 1.Whether the complainant proves deficiency in service by the Respondents 1 & 2 in not settling her claim under four policies, as alleged.? 2.Whether the complainant is entitled for the reliefs sought for? 6. Our finding on the above points are as under:- 1.In the affirmative. 2. As per final order for the following. REASONS POINT NO.1:- 7. There is no dispute that late Tippanna the husband of the complainant had obtained four LIC policies under salary saving scheme and the said Tippanna died on 01-06-06. It is not disputed by the Respondents 1 & 2 that the complainant is not the nominee of the four LIC policies however the complainant has filed Xerox copies of four LIC policies at Ex.P-1 to Ex.P.4 which show her name as nominee being the wife of life assured. The complainant has filed death certificate at Ex.P-5 showing the death of her husband Tippanna on 01-06-06. The complainant has also filed office copy of the letter dt. 10-05-07 at Ex.P-6 addressed to the Respondent No-1 for settlement of LIC policy and a copy of which sent to Legal Officer Claims Division Office Raichur through Professional Courier at Ex.P-6(1) to Ex.P.6(4). 8. A close perusal of this letter at Ex.P-6 it shows that the complainant had also enclosed copies of four LIC policies, death certificate of late Tippanna and salary slip of late Tippanna. The professional courier Ex.P-6(4) shows acknowledgement seal of Respondent No-1 LIC of India and Ex.P-6(2) shows the acknowledgement seal of Legal Officer Claims LIC of India. So it shows that the letter at Ex.P-6 has been served on Respondent No-1 and the copy of which has been served to Legal Officer Ex.P-7 Office copy of Legal notice dt. 25-06-07 issued to Respondent No-1 & 2 interalia states that the complainant had requested several times through letters and lastly vide letter dt. 10-05-07 through courier service for settlement of four LIC policies and hence they were called upon to settle the claim within (7) days. Admittedly this legal notice dt. 25-06-07 at Ex.P-7 has been sent under RPAD to both the Respondents which has been served vide postal acknowledgement at Ex.P-7(1) & Ex.P-7(2) on 26-06-07. So in-spite of service of letter dt. 10-05-07 at Ex.P-6 vide courier service and in-spite of legal notice dt. 25-06-07 at Ex.P-7 vide postal acknowledgement at Ex.P-7(1) & Ex.P-7(2) the Respondents have neither settled the claim nor intimated anything in the matter. Of course the Respondents have produced photo-stat copy of letter dt. 17-07-07 addressed to the counsel for the complainant at Ex.R-1. This letter Ex.R-1 goes to show that they have called for premium recovery particulars of the four LIC policies from the employer of late Tippanna and after receipt of the same they will proceed into the matter. 9. The Learned Counsel for the complainant submits that this letter at Ex.R-1 dt. 17-07-07 has been issued after the complaint is filed before this Forum on 13-07-07. The L.C. for the Respondents 1 & 2 submits that the Respondents does not aware of the filing of the complaint since the notice of the complaint have been served on Respondents 1 & 2 only after issuance of the letter at Ex.R-1 by them. The Records of this case shows that the complainant has filed this complaint in this Forum on 13-07-07 and on 26-07-07 after hearing counsel on admission of the complaint an order was passed for issuing notice to the Respondents returnable by 30-08-07. So it may be that the Respondents were not aware of filing of the complaint when they issued the reply letter at Ex.R-1 on 17-07-07. But one thing is clear that there is inordinate delay in not replying to letter of the complainant dt. 10-05-07 at Ex.P-6 and to legal notice at Ex.P-7 which have been duly served on the Respondents vide courier service and postal acknowledgement respectively. If the Respondents had promptly replied to any one of these two letters then the filing of this complaint would have been avoided by the complainant who had filed this complaint by incurring litigation expenses including payment of court fees. Therefore even though the claim in this complaint is premature as per letter of the Respondents at Ex.R-1 as discussed earlier, but we find deficiency in service by the Respondents in not promptly replying to the two letters at Ex.P-6 & Ex.P-7 which made her to knock the door of this Forum. Hence to this extent we hold that the complainant has proved deficiency in service on the part of the Respondents. Hence Point No-1 is answered in the affirmative. POINT NO.2:- 10. In view of our discussions and finding on Point NO-1 holding that the claim under policy is premature one since the Respondents have yet to process by getting Premium Recovery Particulars of late policyholder from his employer. So no order regarding policy amount can be passed at this stage. However having regard to attitude of the Respondents in not replying to the letter at Ex.P-6 & Ex.P-7 resulting in filing of this complaint as discussed supra, the complainant is entitled for compensation of Rs. 2,000/- besides, we feel it just and proper to issue direction to the Respondents 1 & 2 to expedite the claim matter of the complainant without causing further delay. In this view of the matter we pass the following order: ORDER The complaint of the complainant is allowed in part only to extent of not replying to the letters of the complainant at Ex.P-6 & Ex.P-7 which made her to file the present complaint even though her claim appears to be premature on the delayed reply letter of the Respondents dt. 17-07-07. The Respondent shall pay compensation of Rs. 2,000/- to the complainant including cost of litigation. The Respondent shall comply this order within (6) weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. The Respondents are further directed to expedite the claim matter of the complainant at an earliest. Office to furnish certified copy of this order to both the parties forth with free of cost. (Dictated to the Stenographer, typed, corrected and then pronounced in the open Forum on 30-11-07) Sd/- Sd/- Sd/- Smt.Pratibha Rani Hiremath, Sri. Gururaj Sri. N.H. Savalagi, Member. Member. President, Dist.Forum-Raichur. Dist-Forum-Raichur Dist-Forum-Raichur.

This is a complaint filed U/s. 12 of Consumer Protection Act by the complainant Smt. Saraswati against the two Respondents (1) Divisional Manager LIC of India, Raichur (2) Branch Manager Life Insurance Corporation of India. Branch Office Sindhanoor, and (3) The General Manager Hutti Gold Mines Company Ltd., Hutti, Tq. Lingasugur. The brief facts of the complaint are as under: The complainant is the legally wedded wife of Tippanna who was an employee working as under ground labour bearing Token No. 1936 under the employment of Respondent No-3 Hutti Gold Mines Company Ltd., Hutti. During his service he had obtained (4) LIC policies from Respondent No-2 under salary saving scheme namely Policy No. (1) 661238629 dt. 25-02-02 for assured sum of Rs. 40,000/- for a period of (25) years, (2) 661366999 dt. 15-03-02 for assured sum of Rs. 40,000/- for a period of (25) years, (3) 661414999 dt. 28-05-03 for assured sum of Rs. 40,000/- for a period of (20) years, (4) 661415450 dt. 14-08-03 for assured sum of Rs. 50,000/- for a period of (15) years. Respondent No-3 had undertaken for making the payment of premium amount of the above said policies to the Respondent No.2, out of salary amount of said Tippanna. The said Tippanna died on 01-06-06 leaving behind him the complainant as his legal heir and nominee of the said policies. After his death of the complainant made several requests to Respondent No- 1 & 2 for making payment of the above said policies and also made request to Respondent NO-1 vide letter dt. 10-05-07 along with required papers has sent through Courier Service. In-spite of service of said letter Respondent No-1 has not taken any steps to settle her claim. Hence she got issued legal notice through her counsel on 25-06-07 by RPAD and in-spite of service of the said notice, the Respondents neither settled her claim nor replied to her notice, which amounts to deficiency of service on the part of the Respondents. Hence for all these reasons she has sought for direction to the Respondents No. 1 & 2 to make payment of LIC policy amount along with bonus interest and other benefits and also for Rs. 20,000/- towards damages and cost for deficiency of service. 2. The Respondents 1 to 3 appeared through their respective counsel. Respondent No-1 has filed written version which has been adopted by Respondent No-2 through memo. Respondent No-3 has filed a separate written version. In the written statement the Respondents 1 & 2 have admitted that late Tippanna the life assured had taken (4) policies under salary saving scheme and he had taken one more policy bearing No. 661450931 which is in lapsed condition and no amount is payable. These Respondents have only received the death intimation which was suitably replied to the complainant but they have not received any claim forms and other requirements for further process of the claim. No repudiation is made regarding policy as such the complaint filed by the complainant is pre-mature and there is no cause of action. Hence for all these reasons the Respondents No- 1 & 2 have sought for dismissal of the complaint. 3. Respondent NO-3 has filed written version contending that they have regularly remitted the premiums of late Tippanna to the LIC whenever his wages is sufficient. Thereafter non-availability of sufficient wages the premium could not be remitted to the LIC. The said fact was being regularly informed to the employee when he took his monthly wage-slip. The Respondent NO-3 Hutti Gold Mines Company could not deduct premium regularly from the salary of the employee because his earnings were not enough to recover the LIC premium since deductions are to be made on the basis of priority as per the provisions under Payment of Wages Act. Therefore the Hutti Gold Mines Company Ltd., is neither negligent nor violated any alleged undertaking given to LIC as such the company is not liable either for damages or compensation as sought for. Hence for all these reasons Respondent No-3 has sought for dismissal of the complaint against this Respondent No-3. 4. During the course of enquiry the complainant has filed her sworn-affidavit by way of examination-in-chief. In-rebuttal on behalf of Respondent No- 1 & 2 the sworn-affidavit of Respondent No-1 is filed by way of examination-in-chief. Similarly the sworn-affidavit of Respondent No-3 is filed by way of examination-in-chief. In these affidavit-evidence they have reiterated their stand in the complaint and written version respectively. The complainant has filed (7) documents at Ex.P-1 to P-7 which are attested Xerox copy of (4) LIC policies, Death certificate of Tippanna, Office copy of letter of complainant dt. 10-05-07 with four courier receipts and office copy of legal notice dt. 25-06-07 with postal receipts and postal acknowledgement. The Respondents No. 1 & 2 have filed photo-stat copy of letter dt. 17-07-07 at Ex.R-1. The Respondent NO-3 has not filed any documents. 5. Heard the arguments of both sides and perused the records. The following points arise for our consideration and determination: 1.Whether the complainant proves deficiency in service by the Respondents 1 & 2 in not settling her claim under four policies, as alleged.? 2.Whether the complainant is entitled for the reliefs sought for? 6. Our finding on the above points are as under:- 1.In the affirmative. 2. As per final order for the following. REASONS POINT NO.1:- 7. There is no dispute that late Tippanna the husband of the complainant had obtained four LIC policies under salary saving scheme and the said Tippanna died on 01-06-06. It is not disputed by the Respondents 1 & 2 that the complainant is not the nominee of the four LIC policies however the complainant has filed Xerox copies of four LIC policies at Ex.P-1 to Ex.P.4 which show her name as nominee being the wife of life assured. The complainant has filed death certificate at Ex.P-5 showing the death of her husband Tippanna on 01-06-06. The complainant has also filed office copy of the letter dt. 10-05-07 at Ex.P-6 addressed to the Respondent No-1 for settlement of LIC policy and a copy of which sent to Legal Officer Claims Division Office Raichur through Professional Courier at Ex.P-6(1) to Ex.P.6(4). 8. A close perusal of this letter at Ex.P-6 it shows that the complainant had also enclosed copies of four LIC policies, death certificate of late Tippanna and salary slip of late Tippanna. The professional courier Ex.P-6(4) shows acknowledgement seal of Respondent No-1 LIC of India and Ex.P-6(2) shows the acknowledgement seal of Legal Officer Claims LIC of India. So it shows that the letter at Ex.P-6 has been served on Respondent No-1 and the copy of which has been served to Legal Officer Ex.P-7 Office copy of Legal notice dt. 25-06-07 issued to Respondent No-1 & 2 interalia states that the complainant had requested several times through letters and lastly vide letter dt. 10-05-07 through courier service for settlement of four LIC policies and hence they were called upon to settle the claim within (7) days. Admittedly this legal notice dt. 25-06-07 at Ex.P-7 has been sent under RPAD to both the Respondents which has been served vide postal acknowledgement at Ex.P-7(1) & Ex.P-7(2) on 26-06-07. So in-spite of service of letter dt. 10-05-07 at Ex.P-6 vide courier service and in-spite of legal notice dt. 25-06-07 at Ex.P-7 vide postal acknowledgement at Ex.P-7(1) & Ex.P-7(2) the Respondents have neither settled the claim nor intimated anything in the matter. Of course the Respondents have produced photo-stat copy of letter dt. 17-07-07 addressed to the counsel for the complainant at Ex.R-1. This letter Ex.R-1 goes to show that they have called for premium recovery particulars of the four LIC policies from the employer of late Tippanna and after receipt of the same they will proceed into the matter. 9. The Learned Counsel for the complainant submits that this letter at Ex.R-1 dt. 17-07-07 has been issued after the complaint is filed before this Forum on 13-07-07. The L.C. for the Respondents 1 & 2 submits that the Respondents does not aware of the filing of the complaint since the notice of the complaint have been served on Respondents 1 & 2 only after issuance of the letter at Ex.R-1 by them. The Records of this case shows that the complainant has filed this complaint in this Forum on 13-07-07 and on 26-07-07 after hearing counsel on admission of the complaint an order was passed for issuing notice to the Respondents returnable by 30-08-07. So it may be that the Respondents were not aware of filing of the complaint when they issued the reply letter at Ex.R-1 on 17-07-07. But one thing is clear that there is inordinate delay in not replying to letter of the complainant dt. 10-05-07 at Ex.P-6 and to legal notice at Ex.P-7 which have been duly served on the Respondents vide courier service and postal acknowledgement respectively. If the Respondents had promptly replied to any one of these two letters then the filing of this complaint would have been avoided by the complainant who had filed this complaint by incurring litigation expenses including payment of court fees. Therefore even though the claim in this complaint is premature as per letter of the Respondents at Ex.R-1 as discussed earlier, but we find deficiency in service by the Respondents in not promptly replying to the two letters at Ex.P-6 & Ex.P-7 which made her to knock the door of this Forum. Hence to this extent we hold that the complainant has proved deficiency in service on the part of the Respondents. Hence Point No-1 is answered in the affirmative. POINT NO.2:- 10. In view of our discussions and finding on Point NO-1 holding that the claim under policy is premature one since the Respondents have yet to process by getting Premium Recovery Particulars of late policyholder from his employer. So no order regarding policy amount can be passed at this stage. However having regard to attitude of the Respondents in not replying to the letter at Ex.P-6 & Ex.P-7 resulting in filing of this complaint as discussed supra, the complainant is entitled for compensation of Rs. 2,000/- besides, we feel it just and proper to issue direction to the Respondents 1 & 2 to expedite the claim matter of the complainant without causing further delay. In this view of the matter we pass the following order: ORDER The complaint of the complainant is allowed in part only to extent of not replying to the letters of the complainant at Ex.P-6 & Ex.P-7 which made her to file the present complaint even though her claim appears to be premature on the delayed reply letter of the Respondents dt. 17-07-07. The Respondent shall pay compensation of Rs. 2,000/- to the complainant including cost of litigation. The Respondent shall comply this order within (6) weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. The Respondents are further directed to expedite the claim matter of the complainant at an earliest. Office to furnish certified copy of this order to both the parties forth with free of cost. (Dictated to the Stenographer, typed, corrected and then pronounced in the open Forum on 30-11-07) Sd/- Sd/- Sd/- Smt.Pratibha Rani Hiremath, Sri. Gururaj Sri. N.H. Savalagi, Member. Member. President, Dist.Forum-Raichur. Dist-Forum-Raichur Dist-Forum-Raichur.