IN THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,
MURSHIDABAD AT BERHAMPORE.
CASE No. CC- 30/2013.
Date of Filing: 20.03.2013 . Date of Final Order: 26.02.2015.
Complainant: Taimur Hossain, S/O Late Janab Biswas , Vill. Antardipa, P.O. Bhasipaikar
P.S. Samserganj, Dist. Murshidabad. .
-Vs-
Opposite Party: 1. Manager, Bangiya Gramin Vikas Bank, Antardipa Branch at Anardipa,
P.O. Bhasaipaikar P.S. Samserganj, Dist. Murshidabad. Pin-742202.
2. Master , Bajaj Alianz Life Insurance Co. Ltd. 4th flood, 10, B, O.C. Ganguly Sarani,
OPP- Lee Road, Bigbazar, Kol-700020.
Present: Sri Anupam Bhattacharyya ………………….President.
Sri Samaresh Kumar Mitra ……………………..Member.
Smt. Pranati Ali ……….……………….……………. Member
FINAL ORDER
Sri Anupam Bhattacharyya – Presiding Member.
The instant complaint has been filed by the complainant u/s 12 of the C.P. Act, 1986 praying for an award for policy money of Rs.1,00,000/- plus Rs.30,000/- the deposited amount and Rs.1,00,000 for loss and damaged and Rs.9800/- the amount deducted and Rs.50,000/- as compensation totaling at Rs. 2,89,800/-.
The complainant’s case, in brief, is that the complainant took a L.I.C policy on 21.7.2009 depositing Rs.20, 000/- on 20.7.09 with the terms and conditions that premium is to be deposited with OP No.1 Bangiya Gramin Bank and the same is to be sent by OP No.1 to OP No.2 LIC. Accordingly, the complainant deposited two premiums for Rs.15, 000/- each with OP No.1 –Bank. But, the Op No.1-Bank did not send the said deposit of Rs.30,000/- to OP no.2 LIC and for that the OP No.2 cancelled the said policy of the complainant and returned Rs.10,200/- being the policy was lapsed for non-sending the premium. Thereafter, the complainant sent photocopy of deposit slip dt. 31.8.10 and 13.8.11 to OP No.1 as directed as a result of writing to higher authority of OP No.1 but no relief. Before cancellation of the policy Op no2 ought to have enquired about payment of premium from Op No.1 and for that both the Ops are liable. Hence, the instant complaint case.
The OP No.1 BGB’s case, in brief , is that the OP no.1 sent a draft being No. 234674 dt/ 31/8.10 for Rs.15,000/- which is the deposit of premium of the complainant and another draft No. 262547 dt. 24.8.11 for Rs.25, 000/- which is the premium of complainant for Rs.15,000/- and another person’s premium of Rs.10,000/- and for that the OP No.1 is not liable to pay anything to the complainant in any way. Hence, the instant written version filed by the OP No.1.
The written version filed by the Op No.2 ,in brief, is that OP no.1 LIC has sent the draft No. 234674 dt. 31.08.10 and 262547 dt. 24.8.11 in the name of Mr. Ainul Hoque and Mr. Abbasuddin Ahmed for respective policy, but not in the name of the complainant. The policy Nos. mentioned in those two drafts are not relating to the policy No. of the complainant. The respective two premiums for the complainant being not sent by the OP No.1 B.G. B. Bank to the LIC, the policy of the complainant was rightly lapsed and for that the OP no.2 is not responsible to pay anything to the complainant as prayed for by the complainant in this case. Hence, the instant written version.
Considering the pleadings of the respective parties the following points have been famed for disposal of the case.
- Whether the complaint is maintainable in law and fact?
- Whether there is any cause of action to file the present complaint?
- Whether the case is barred by the law of limitation?
- Whether the case is barred by the principle of estoppels, waiver and acquiescence?
- Whether the complainant is entitled to get the award as prayed for?
- To what other relief/reliefs the complainant is entitled to.
DECISION WITH REASONS.
Point Nos. 1 to 4.
All those points are taken up together for the sake of convenience.
At the time of hearing argument the Ld. Lawyer for the OP has not raised any objection against those points.
Considering the materials on record we do not find any adverse against these points and ass such all these point are disposed of in favour of the complainant.
Hence, all those points are disposed of in favour of the complainant.
Point Nos. 5 & 6.
Both the points are taken up together for the sake of convenience.
The instant complaint is for an award for policy money of Rs.1, 00,000/- plus Rs.30, 000/- the deposited amount and Rs.1, 00,000/- and Rs.4800/- the amount deducted and Rs.50, 000/- towards compensation for mental pain and agony.
The complainant’s case, in brief, is that the complainant took a L.I.C policy on 21.7.2009 depositing Rs.20, 000/- on 20.7.09 with the terms and conditions that premium is to be deposited with OP No.1 Bangiya Gramin Bank and the same is to be sent by OP No.1 to OP No.2 LIC. Accordingly, the complainant deposited two premiums for Rs.15, 000/- each with OP No.1 –Bank. But, the Op No.1-Bank did not send the said deposit of Rs.30,000/- to OP no.2 LIC and for that the OP No.2 cancelled the said policy of the complainant and returned Rs.10,200/- being the policy was lapsed for non-sending the premium. Thereafter, the complainant sent photocopy of deposit slip dt. 31.8.10 and 13.8.11 to OP No.1 as directed as a result of writing to higher authority of OP No.1 but no relief. Before cancellation of the policy Op no2 ought to have enquired about payment of premium from Op No.1 and for that both the Ops are liable.
The OP No.1 BGB’s case is that the OP no.1 sent a draft being No. 234674 dt/ 31/8.10 for Rs.15,000/- which is the deposit of premium of the complainant and another draft No. 262547 dt. 24.8.11 for Rs.25, 000/- which is the premium of complainant for Rs.15,000/- and another person’s premium of Rs.10,000/-.
On the other hand the OP no.1 LIC has rebutted the contention of Op No.1 by adducing documentary evidence as to the alleged draft No. 234674 dt. 31.08.10 and 262547 dt. 24.8.11 which show that those are in the name of Mr. Ainul Hoque and Mr. Abbasuddin Ahmed for respective policy, but not in the name of the complainant.
The OP No.2 LIC’s case is that premium being not paid by the complainant the impugned policy of the complainant was lapsed and for that OP no.2 returned Rs.10, 200/- to the complainant out of Rs.20, 000/- the initial deposit of the complainant.
Admittedly, the mode of the payment of premium to the OP No.2 was through OP no.1 BGB.
The complainant’s case is that he deposited 2nd and 3rd premium of Rs.15, 000/- each with OP No.1, BGB.
To prove the same the complainant has adduced evidence on –affidavit as well as adduced documentary evidence.
He has filed Xerox copy of two separate deposits slips dt. 13.8.2011 for Rs.15, 000/- and on 31.8.2010 for Rs.15, 000/-.
He has also filed other relevant documents in support of his case.
He has filed the bank statement of Op No.1-BGB showing credit of Rs.10, 260/- in the a/c of the complainant on 22.6.12.
Immediate thereafter, the complainant wrote a letter to Op No.1-BGB on 31.8.12 intimating the said fact of credit of Rs.10,260/- being the policy was lapsed for non-sending his two deposits of rs.30,000/- (Rs.15,000/- each) to OP No.2 LIC. He also sent other two letters dt. 18.9.12 and 12.2.13 to OP no.1 in this regard. Ultimately, in response to his letter dt. 12.2.13 OP no.1 asked the complainant through letter dt. 23.2.13 to send the respective deposit slips to them.
The complainant has filed Xerox copies of all those documents before this forum.
The OP No.1’s case is that the OP no.1 sent a draft being No. 234674 dt/ 31/8.10 for Rs.15,000/- which is the deposit of premium of the complainant and another draft No. 262547 dt. 24.8.11 for Rs.25, 000/- which is the premium of complainant for Rs.15,000/- and another person’s premium of Rs.10,000/-.
On the other hand the OP no.2 LIC has rebutted the contention of Op No.1 by adducing documentary evidence as to the alleged draft No. 234674 dt. 31.08.10 and 262547 dt. 24.8.11 which show that those are in the name of Mr. Ainul Hoque and Mr. Abbasuddin Ahmed for respective policy, but not in the name of the complainant.
But the Op no.1 BGB has not filed any such documents showing that they sent the deposit to OP No.2-LIC in respect of the policy of the complainant.
On the other hand, the Op No.2 has filed the documents as to sending the drafts to OP No.2 bearing draft No. 234674 dt. 31.8.10 and No. 262547 dt. 24.8.11 as claimed by OP No.1 which shows that the same are not in the name of the complainant Taimur Hossain, but the same are in the names of Md. Ainul Haque and Mr. Abbasuddin Ahmed respectively also showing respective policy numbers.
During hearing argument showing the above documents filed by the OP No.2 LIC, the ld. Lawyer for the OP No.1-BGB has not raised any objection. Also, the OP No.1 has not any documents rebutting the same or to establish that the Op No.1 send the deposit money of the complainant for Rs.30, 000/- to OP No.2-LIC.
Also, the OP No.1 has not filed any iota of evidence rebutting the deposits slips dt. 31.8.10 and 13.8.11 filed by the complainant.
That being so, we have no other alternative but to conclude that OP No.1 only is responsible for the lapse of the policy of the complainant and for that the OP No.1 is liable to meet the loss sustained by the complainant and also to pay compensation for the same.
Considering the above discussion as a whole we can safely conclude that the OP No.2 Insurance Company is not liable for the lapse of the policy of the complainant and as such the OP No.2 is not liable to pay any amount to the complainant in this case.
Regarding the claim of Rs.1, 00,000/- the assured some of money of the policy of the complainant it is clear that the impugned policy was lapsed for non-payment of premium and it is established , already discussed that the OP No.1 is responsible for such lapse of policy due to non-payment of premium.
Now, it is clear that at this belated stage there is no scope of renewal of the policy.
It is also clear that the complainant cannot claim the entire assured sum of policy without depositing the entire premium but he is entitled to get compensation for such loss and for that we are of view that in this particular case the complainant is entitled to get the amount deposited with the OP No.1 B.G.B plus compensation of Rs.20, 000/- and litigation cost of Rs.2, 000/-.
On the basis of above discussions we find that all these points are disposed in favour of the complainant in part.
Considering the decision of all the points together we can safely concluded that all these points are disposed of in favour of the complainant in part and as such the complaint be allowed in part and complainant will get Rs. 39,800/- plus compensation of Rs.20,000/- and litigation cost of Rs.2, 000/- from the OP No.1. B.G.B. Bank
Hence,
ORDERED
That the consumer complaint No.30/2013 be and the same is allowed in part on contest against the OP No.1 and dismissed against OP No.2.
The complainant will get Rs.39,800/- amount deposited with OP no.1 Bank plus compensation of Rs.20, 000/- plus litigation cost of Rs.2, 000/- from the OP No.1 B.G.B. Bank.
The OP No.1 B.G.B. Bank is directed to pay (Rs. 39,800/- + Rs.20, 000/- + Rs.2, 000/-) i.e in total Rs.61, 800/- to the complainant within one month from the date of this order, failing which a fine of Rs.100 is to be imposed upon the OP No.1 for each day’s delay and the amount so calculated shall be deposited in the State Consumer Welfare Fund.
Let a plain copy of this order be made available and be supplied free of cost, to each of the parties on contest in person, Ld. Advocate/Agent on record, by hand under proper acknowledgment / be sent forthwith under registered post with A/D to the concerned parties as per rules, for information and necessary action.
Member Member President
District Consumer Disputes District Consumer Disputes District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum. Redressal Forum. Redressal Forum.
Murshidabad. Murshidabad. Murshidabad.
