CC Filed on 16.06.2011
Disposed on 11.11.2011
BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KOLAR.
Dated: 11th day of November 2011
PRESENT:
HONORABLE T. RAJASHEKHARAIAH, President.
HONORABLE T.NAGARAJA, Member.
HONORABLE K.G.SHANTALA, Member.
---
Consumer Complaint No. 141/2011
Between:
Sri. Venkatesh, S/o. Late. Thimmaiah, Aged about 49 years, # 1812, Santhegate, Bhovi Colony, Kolar - 563101. (By Advocate Sri. V.S. Ramesh ) | ….Complainant |
V/S 1. The Manager, Life Insurance Corporation Ltd., Kolar Division, Kolar. 2. The Regional Manager, Life Insurance Corporation Ltd., Jeevana Jyothi Vibhaga, Indiranagar, B.D.A. Complex, Bangalore – 38. | ….Opposite Parties |
ORDER
This is a complaint filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The complainant contends that he has obtained a money back policy from the Opposite Party No.1 for a sum of Rs.30,000/- and the policy was issued on 30.07.1998. The complainant was an employee and the premium amount of Rs.173/- was deducted from his salary directly from the employer. The premium has been deducted from his salary till May 2002 and the later premium was not deducted. The Opposite Party No.1 also did not intimate that fact to the complainant and it was not within the knowledge of the complainant also. Hence he came to know about six to seven months back that the policy has been lapsed. He gave requisition to the Opposite Party No.1 on 13.11.2010 intimating that he wants to surrender the policy, but the Opposite Party No.1 did not respond properly. The Opposite Party No.1 orally intimated the complainant that the said amount has been refunded to the complainant, but the complainant has not received that amount. It is stated that some other person has misappropriated that amount. He has paid Rs.5,276/- as premium, hence he has prayed for refund of that amount along with interest and damages of Rs.10,000/-.
2. The Opposite Party No.1 and 2 filed its version and has admitted about the issuing of insurance policy, paying the premium by the employer of the complainant and about lapsing of the policy. It is further stated that on 14.10.2003 one Venkatesh gave application for settlement of surrender value and he has given the same address as that of the complainant and after verification of the records, the Opposite Party has paid the amount to said Venkatesh for Rs.5,276/- by cheque. The Opposite Party was not aware of the collusion of the staff members with the wrong person Venkatesh. The Opposite Party has to verifying the payment details and records to find out the mistake and to take appropriate steps to recover the same. Now according to the Opposite Party, the amount payable under that policy with interest is Rs.8,886/-. The Opposite Party No.1 and 2 prayed to settle the surrender value of Rs.8,886/- to the complainant and to dismiss the complaint.
3. The points that arise for our consideration are:
Point No.1: Whether the complainant has proved the alleged
deficiency in service by the OP?
Point No.2: To what order?
4. Our findings to these points are as hereunder:
1. Negative
2. As per final order.
R E A S O N S
5. POINT NOS. 1 & 2: The above facts clearly goes to show that even according to the Opposite Party, the amount is not actually paid to the complainant and it was paid to some other person by same name, hence the Opposite Party has no objection to settle the surrender value amount to the complainant. That means the Opposite Party is ready to pay that amount to the complainant. Hence the Opposite Party may be directed to pay that amount to the complainant. It is seen that only six to seven months before filing the complaint, the complainant came to know about lapsing of the policy and then he moved the Opposite Party to pay the amount. It is not the case of the complainant that the Opposite Party refused to pay that amount, but he only states that the Opposite Party has not given any information or responded properly. In our opinion, there is no repudiation of the claim of the complainant. Hence it cannot be said that the Opposite Party has refused to pay the amount. Hence there is no deficiency in service. It is clear that even before the Opposite Party could verify about how the amount was given to some other person and take a decision to recover that amount, from that person to whom it was paid and before taking the decision whether to pay to the complainant or not, he has filed this complaint. Hence actually there is no cause of action to file this complaint. Hence the Opposite Party cannot to be said to have committed any default or deficiency in service. Hence it is not proper to award any compensation or costs. However, having regard to the admissions of the Opposite Party that they are willing to settle the surrender value at Rs.8,886/-, they may directed to pay that amount to the complainant. At the time of arguments, the complainant also submitted that he does not dispute the calculation made by the Opposite Party about how much amount is liable to be paid under the policy. Hence we pass the following:
O R D E R
It is held that there is no deficiency in service. Hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed. However on the admission of the Opposite Party, the complainant is entitled for receiving the amount of Rs.8,886/- from the Opposite Party No.1 and 2. Hence the Opposite Party No.1 and 2 are hereby directed to pay Rs.8,886/- to the complainant within 30 days from the date of this order. If the Opposite Party No.1 and 2 commits default to pay the amount within 30 days, the complainant will be entitled for interest at the rate of 9% p.a. from the date of default until actual payment. There shall be no order as to costs.
Dictated to the Stenographer, corrected and pronounced in open Forum this the 11th day of November 2011.
T. NAGARAJA K.G.SHANTALA T. RAJASHEKHARAIAH
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
