Telangana

Mahbubnagar

CC/08/66

A.Chennaiah, S/o A.Yerranna, O/c Retd. MEO - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Manager, LIC of India, Wanaparthy Branch n Others - Opp.Party(s)

Sri M.Chennaiah Goud

27 Nov 2008

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM AT MAHABUBNAGAR

Thursday, the 27^th day of November, 2008

                                                              Present:- Sri M.Rama Rao, B.A.,LL.B., President

     Sri P.Venkateshwara Rao, B.com., LL.B., Member

       Smt.B.Vijaya Kumari, M.Sc. B.Ed., C.C.P., Member

 

                                                                                      C.C.NO. 66  Of   2008

 

Between:-

 

A. Chennaiah S/o Yerranna, age: 59 years, Occ: Retd. M.E.O.,   R/o H.No.41-242, Teachers Colony, Wanaparthy, Mahabubnagar.  

                                                                                              

         … Complainant

And

1.   The Manager, L.I.C. of India, Wanaparthy Branch.  

 

2.   The Senior Divisional Manager, L.I.C. of India, Divisional Office,                  

      Jeevan Prakash, 5-9-21, Secretariat Road, Saifabad, Hyderabad.

 

3.   Mandal Educational Officer, Pebbair Mandal.

 

4.   Mandal Educational Oficer, Wanaparthy Mandal.

 

5.   Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Mahabubnagar.

 

6.   District Educational Officer, Mahabubnagar.

 

7.   M.E.O., Mominpet Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.

 

8.   D.E.O., Ranga Reddy District, Hyderabad.

 

                                                                                      … Opposite Parties

 

 This C.C. coming on before us for final hearing on 19-11-2008,             in the presence of Sri M. Chennaiah Goud, Advocate, Mahabubnagar for the complainant and of Sri  Lakshmi Kantha Rao, Advocate, Mahabubnagar for  OP.Nos.1 and 2 and OP.Nos.3 to 8 having been set exparte and having stoodover for consideration till this day, this Forum delivered the following:

 

O R D E R

 

(Sri P.Venkateshwara Rao, Member)

 

1.        This is a complaint filed on behalf of the complainant under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 seeking a direction to the opposite parties to pay the maturity amount of policy of the complainant with benefits from 1993 to August, 2000 along with interest @ 36% p.a. from the date of maturity i.e., August, 2000 to till realization and to pay interest on Rs.12,408/- from August, 2000 to 20.6.2008 @ 36% p.a. and to pay Rs.10,000/- towards mental agony and financial stress and  Rs.10,000/- towards compensation and also to pay Rs.3,000/- towards costs of the complaint.
2.     The complaint averments are as follows:- The complainant was Government employee during his service.   The complainant obtained LIC Endowment Assurance Policy bearing No.38265335 under Salary Saving Scheme for Rs.10,000/- for the period of 20 years from 28.8.1980 to 28.8.2000.  The complainant has worked during the policy period at different places as mentioned below:   

      August 1980 to August 1982 at UPS Telugu Wada, Wanaparthy.

      September 1982 to August 1985 at UPS Pamapur, Wanaparthy.

     September 1985 to September 1986 at UPS Kadukuntla, Wanaparthy.

     October 1986 to December 1992 at ZPHS, Kadukuntla, Wanaparthy.

     January 1993 to April 2000 at UPS Ayyawaripally, Pebbair Mandal.

     May 2000 to August 2000 at Mominpet, Ranga Reddy District.

   The monthly premium amount of Rs.44-30 ps. was deducted from the salary of the complainant regularly without any interruption by the employer till the maturity.  The premium amount of Rs.44-30 ps. per month was deducted from the salary of the complainant for the policy bearing No.38265335 but the said premium was wrongly credited to the policy No.38113902 which does not belong to the complainant.   The OPs have to pay maturity amounts with all benefits of the policy but OPs have not paid the maturity amount though the complainant has requested OPs so many times.   OPs have not given any response and neglected to answer about the claim of the complainant.   Meanwhile the complainant was suffered from health problems and undergone treatment.   Thereafter the complainant has addressed a letter to OP.1 on 12.2.2002 for repayment of excess deduction from the salary of the complainant towards premium of said policy.  In response to said letter, the authorities of OP.1 issued a letter to the complainant on 19.7.2002 stating that to send status report upto 12/1992 and in the said letter they have shown the policy number of the complainant wrongly as 38113902 instead of complainant’s policy No.38265335 for which the complainant has explained and complied the status report through proper channel.  Inspite of that OP.1 has not taken any steps to settle the matter.  Finally the complainant has addressed a letter through registered post on 21.4.2007 and the same was served and no reply was given by OPs and neglected the claim of the complainant.   Finally the complainant has got issued a legal notice on 25.5.2007 through Advocate demanding his claim of matured amount with all benefits and the same is served on OP.1 and OP.1 gave reply on 2.6.2007 stating that they have sought advise from Divisional Office and asked the complainant to wait till getting advise from the Divisional Office.    Thereafter the OP has not taken any steps and not paid the policy matured amount and benefits.  The acts of OP.1 put the complainant to mental agony and cause financial loss.  The complainant has filed C.C.No.58/2007 on the file of the District Forum, Mahabubnagar.  In the above said C.C. the OP.1 has deposited a cheque for Rs.12,408/- on 20.6.2008 before the District Forum for the period of 12 years i.e., from August, 1980 to December, 1992 in favour of the complainant stating that premium is paid for above said period only.   Since the above said C.C. 58/2007 was withdrawn with the leave to file fresh C.C. for the remaining claim.  The complainant is still entitled to benefits as on the date of maturity of the said policy September, 2000.   But the OP.1 has paid benefits only upto 1992.  The complainant is entitled to further benefits from 1992 to 2000 and the complainant is also entitled interest on the benefit amount from 2000 to till realization.  So the OPs are jointly and severally liable to pay the benefits from 1992 to 2000 and interest on 12,408/- from 2000 to 20.6.2008 and benefits from January 1993 to 2000 and interest thereon.    The complainant has taken the policy with an intention to save the amount for future dire necessities but the aspiration of the complainant is in vain due to the attitude of OPs.   After retirement the complainant has undergone for treatment for which he incurred heavy expenditure.  The OPs.3 to 7 are the salary drawing authority of the complainant under whom the complainant had worked.  The monthly premium was deducted by them from the salary of the complainant.    The acts of OPs amount to deficiency in services.   As such the complainant is entitled to claim the above amounts as prayed for.     Hence the complaint. 

 

3.     The opposite parties filed counter with the following averments:-    The complainant has already filed C.C.No.58/2007 on the file of this Hon’ble Forum.    The complainant has received the amount of Rs.12,408/- from this Forum as we have deposited the said amount on 20.6.2008 after due verification on receiving of the premiums from the disbursing authority of the complainant.   The complainant without filing any record in this regard has filed the recent case.    The complainant has shown several places of his work but he failed to show the particulars of the amount and in which policy number the said amount was deposited by whom and clear details of the said deposit.   It is false to say that the amount of the complainant is deducted in one policy number i.e., 38265335 and the same is adjusted in other policy number i.e., 38113902.   The OPs did not commit any mistake as avered supra.  As per records of the OPs the complainant is default in payment of premium in policy No.38265335 which is the policy of the complainant.    It is true that the complainant got issued legal notice through Advocate and the OPs gave reply for the same.    It is false to say that the complainant is entitled for the benefits from all the OPs from 1992 to 2000 and interest thereon.   The OPs deny all the material allegations contained in the complaint and put the complainant to the strict proof of the allegations made by him more particularly which are specifically not admitted by OPs.   There is no deficiency of service on the part of OPs.    There is no cause of action for the complainant to file the present case against the OPs.   The dates of cause of action shown in the complaint are false and fictitious, hence denied.   The complaint may be treated as frivolous and vexatious and the same may be dismissed with compensatory costs.  

 

4.  The complainant filed his affidavit and got marked Exs.A-1 to A-9.

 

5.  The opposite party Nos.1 and 2 filed their affidavit and did not file any documents on their behalf. 

 

6.  The opposite party Nos.3 to 8 remained exparte.

 

7.  The complainant filed his written arguments.  

 

8.  The point which falls for consideration is whether the complainant is  

entitled to the reliefs as prayed for?

 

9.    The facts which are not in dispute are that the complainant obtained Endowment Assurance Policy with profits from OP.Nos.1 and 2 for Rs.10,000/- under Salary Saving Scheme for 20 years period from 28.8.1980 to 28.7.2000.    The date of payment of last premium was 28.7.2000.   The monthly premium was fixed at Rs.44-30 ps.   The OPs.1 and 2 issued the said policy bearing No.38265335.    The OPs.3 to 8 are the employers, salary drawing officers of the complainant during the policy period and they i.e., OP.Nos.3 to 8 have deducted premium regularly from the salary of the complainant.   The complainant got issued legal notice to OPs.1 and 2 and asked for payment of his policy amount together with all the benefits.    Whereas OPs.1 and 2 replied it and informed that the said policy was in lapsed condition due to non payment of premium.    On enquiring it is learnt that OPs.3 to 7 mentioned the policy number wrongly as 38113902 instead of 38265335.   

 

10.   At first instance the complainant filed a complaint before this Forum.    It was taken as file C.C.No.58/2007.   In the said C.C., the OPs filed counter stating that they have not received any premium except for August and September 1980 with regard to the policy No.38265335 of the complainant and the policy was in total lapsed condition.  The complainant filed proof to show that his employers wrongly credited the monthly premiums into the policy No.38113902 instead of 38265335.   Basing on such information, the OPs enquired about the remittances and found that the deducted premium upto December, 1992 was wrongly credited into another account.    Accordingly the OPs paid Rs.12,408/- vide Ex.A-7 towards Paid up Value and Vested Bonus which was entitled by the complainant as on December, 1992.   OPs asked the complainant to give some more time to trace out further information about the remittances.   In view of the assurances of OPs, the complainant has not pressed the C.C.58/2007 with the permission of this Forum with a leave to file a fresh complaint within two months if the OPs failed to discharge their duties.    Hence the present C.C. is filed with an allegation that the OPs failed to pay the entire profits of the policy though received the entire premium from the complainant.    

 

11.  There is no dispute that the OPs. 3 to 7 are the concerned drawing officers where the complainant worked during the policy period.   It is evident from Ex.A-7 that OPs received premium upto December, 1992.   Ex.A-8 proves that the OP.3 deducted the monthly premium of  Rs.44-30 ps. from the salary of the complainant from January, 1993 to April, 2000 and as per Ex.A-9 the OP.7 deducted the premium amount for the period of May, 2000 to November, 2000.    Therefore in view of Exs.A-7 to A-9 it is clear that the employers of the complainant regularly deducted the monthly premium of Rs.44-30 ps. from the salary of the complainant for the entire policy amount i.e., from 28.8.1980 to 28.7.2000.    It is further evident from Ex.A-9 that though the date of payment of last premium was 28.7.2000 the premium was deducted till November, 2000.   The learned counsel for OPs categorically argued that the OPs. 3 to 7 being employers did the mistake by wrongly crediting the premium amounts into some other account which is pure negligence and deficiency of service on their part.  Therefore they are liable to compensate the loss.   The learned counsel for the complainant in rebuttal argued that OPs. 3 to 7 i.e., employers working as an agent to LIC as such, the LIC is liable for the payment of policy amount.   In our considered opinion in a Salary Saving Scheme for LIC policy, employer under the duty to collect and remit premium would be working as agent of LIC and any default on his part would not entitle to repudiate policy claim.  In this regard we are relying on the decision of the Hon’ble Madhya Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in the case of Smt. Sakeena Bano and another Vs. L.I.C. and another reported in CPR 2004 (3) P.197.      

 

     In light of the facts and circumstances of the case and case law referred above, we are of the considered opinion that the complainant paid entire premium of the policy, as such he is entitled for all the benefits under the policy.  Secondly, the OPs. 3 to 7 deducted the premium amount of Rs.44-30 ps. beyond four months of the stipulated period i.e., from August, 2000 to November, 2000 and the OPs rendered services in deficit by wrongly crediting the deducted premium into the unconcerned policy and caused much inconvenience to the complainant.   Further OPs are also negligent in deducting the premium beyond the prescribed period.    Therefore we hold that the complainant is entitled to get back his excess payments from the OPs. 1 and 2 together with interest @ 6% p.a. from the month of December, 2000 to till the payment apart from the benefits under the policy after deducting the amount of Rs.12,408/- which was already paid by OPs. 1 and 2.  We have already held above that the OPs. 3 to 8 have discharged their duties as Agents of OPs. 1 and 2.    Therefore we feel that they are not liable to pay any amount to the complainant as claimed by him. 

 

     The complainant is claiming his entitled amount together with interest @ 36% p.a.   In our opinion it is very higher side.   In our view 6% p.a. interest is quite reasonable to award on the amount of bonus and all other benefits payable as on the date of maturity of the policy from 1.12.2000 to till the payment.   The OPs. 1 and 2 are at liberty to deduct the amount of Rs.12,408/- already paid by them. The complainant is further claiming Rs.20,000/- towards compensation and mental agony.   The complainant has not filed any proof to substantiate his claim.  Therefore we feel he is not entitled for the said amounts and his claim stands dismissed. However the complainant is entitled to get Rs.500/- towards the costs of the proceedings.   

 

12. In the result, the complaint is allowed.  The opposite party Nos. 1 and 2 are directed jointly and severally to pay the policy amount with all benefits together with interest @ 6% p.a. thereon from December, 2000 to till the payment after deducting the amount of Rs.12,408/-.    The OPs. 1 and 2 are further directed to refund the excess collection amount of Rs.177-20 ps. together with interest @ 6% p.a. from December 2000 to till the payment and Rs.500/- towards costs of the proceedings to the complainant within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order.    The complaint against OPs. 3 to 8 is dismissed as not maintainable.  Rest of the claims of the complainant are disallowed. 

 

        Typed to dictation, corrected and pronounced by us in the open Forum on this the 27th day of November, 2008.           

 

        

 MEMBER                                MEMBER                              PRESIDENT 

    Appendix of evidence

       Witness examined

 

For complainant: Nil                                                 For opposite parties:  Nil

Exhibits marked for Complainant:-  

 

Ex.A-1:        Original Policy Bond, dt.28.8.1980.

Ex.A-2:        Original Receipt, dt.30.8.1980.

Ex.A-3:        Copy of letter issued by complainant, dt.12.2.2002.

Ex.A-4:        Copy of Legal Notice, dt.25.5.2007.

Ex.A-5:        Reply Notice, dt.2.6.2007.

Ex.A-6:        Copy of letter issued by complainant, dt.21.4.2007

Ex.A-7:        Copy of Statement of Account, dt.23.2.2008.

Ex.A-8:        Certificate issued by H.M, ZPHS, dt.16.6.2008.

Ex.A-9:        Certificate issued by MPDO, Mominpet Mandal.

 

Exhibits marked for OPs:-   

 

     - Nil-

 

By the Forum:

     - Nil-

                                                                                                                                                                                                                            PRESIDENT

Copy to:-

1. Sri M. Chennaiah Goud, Advocate, Mahabubnagar for the complainant.
2. Sri  Lakshmi Kantha Rao, Advocate, Mahabubnagar for  OP.Nos.1 and 2.
3.  Mandal Educational Officer, Pebbair Mandal.
4.  Mandal Educational Oficer, Wanaparthy Mandal.
5. Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Mahabubnagar.
6. District Educational Officer, Mahabubnagar.
7. M.E.O., Mominpet Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.
8. D.E.O., Ranga Reddy District, Hyderabad.