Haryana

Kaithal

422/20

Karamveer Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner - Opp.Party(s)

Sh.D.S Chahal

07 Apr 2023

ORDER

                      

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KAITHAL.

                                                     Complaint Case No.422/2020.

                                                     Date of institution: 01.12.2020.

                                                     Date of decision:07.04.2023.

Karamveer Singh son of Sh. Telu Ram, retired Office Superintendent, The Kaithal Co-operative Sugar Mills, Kaithal r/o near Nain Medicose, Nehru Garden Colony, Kaithal.

                                                                        …Complainant.

                        Versus

1. The Regional Commissioner, Employees Provident Fund Organization, Sector-12, Karnal.
2. Life Insurance Corporation, Jiwan Parkash, Sector-17(B), Chandigarh.
3. The Kaithal Co-operative Sugar Mills, Kaithal through its Managing Director.

….Respondents.

        Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act

CORAM:     SMT. NEELAM KASHYAP, PRESIDENT.

                SMT. SUMAN RANA, MEMBER.

                SH. SUNIL MOHAN TRIKHA, MEMBER.

       

Present:     Sh. Sandeep Chahal, Advocate, for the complainant.   

                Sh. K.K.Khetarpal, Advocate for the OP No.1.

                Sh. Jitesh Dua, Adv. for the OP No.2.

                Sh. Ram Parsad, Clerk Rep. for the OP No.3.

               

ORDER

NEELAM KASHYAP, PRESIDENT

        Karambir Singh-Complainant has filed this complaint under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) against the respondents.

                In nutshell, the facts of present case are that the complainant had purchased a life insurance policy bearing No.162892355 from the OP No.2 through OPs No.1 & 3 and the installment of Rs.6767/- of each year was to be deducted from the EPF account of the complainant.  It is alleged that the office of LIC, Chandigarh had informed the complainant to get released the maturity benefit of the policy vide letter dt. 13.03.2019 and asked the complainant to send the required documents.  It is further alleged that vide letter ENDT/SMK/ACCOUNT/19/8368 dt. 11.02.2019 and letter dt. SMK/ACCOUNT/19/53 dt. 03.04.2019, OP No.3 had requested the OP No.1 to send the original insurance policy documents and discharge form to the office of LIC, Chandigarh but they did not do so.  So, it is a clear cut case of deficiency in service on the part of respondents and prayed for acceptance of complaint.     

2.            Upon notice, the respondents appeared before this Commission and contested the complaint by filing their written version separately.  Op No.1 filed the written statement raising preliminary objections with regard to locus-standi; maintainability; cause of action; mis-joinder and non-joinder of necessary parties; that the original required demanded document of Policy Bond was sent to OP No.3 on 21.11.2019 by OP No.1, vide letter No.HR/KNL/7363/02/10160 and now the maturity amount against the policy has been received in the office of answering OP and the same has been credited in the EPF account of the complainant; that there is no deficiency in service on the part of respondents.  On merits, the objections raised in the preliminary objections are rebutted and so, prayed for dismissal of complaint.

3.             OP No.2 filed the written statement raising preliminary objections with regard to locus-standi; maintainability; cause of action; mis-joinder and non-joinder of necessary parties; that there is no deficiency in service on the part of answering OP.  On merits, it is admitted to the extent that policy in question was taken by Sh. Karamvir Singh S/o Sh. Telu Ram for sum assured of Rs.80,000/- with date of commencement of 28.10.2005 under Plan & Term 14-13 with yearly premium of Rs.6767/- and policy matured on 28.10.2018; that the maturity claim amount has already been paid in favour of RPFC, Karnal as the policy was assigned to RPFC, Karnal by the life assured on 13.12.2005; that the answering OP released the payment amounting to Rs.1,24,988/- i.e. Rs.1,20,560/- alongwith interest amount of Rs.4428/- through NEFT in their account NO.10868325100 on 28.11.2019 vide UTR No.N333190325584550.  The other objections raised in the complaint are also rebutted and so, prayed for dismissal of complaint.

4.             OP No.3 filed the written statement on the same line as followed by OPs No.1 & 2 and so, prayed for dismissal of complaint.     

5.             To prove his case, the complainant tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.CW1/A alongwith documents Annexure-C1 to Annexure-C7 and thereafter, closed the evidence.

6.             On the other hand, the respondent No.3 tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.RW3/A alongwith documents Annexure-R1 & Annexure-R2, Op No.1 tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.RW1/A alongwith document Annexure-R3 and OP No.2 tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.RW2/A alongwith documents Annexure-R4 to Annexure-R11 and thereafter, closed the evidence.

7.             We have heard the learned Counsel for both the parties and perused the record carefully.

8.             Ld. counsel for the complainant argued that the complainant had purchased a life insurance policy bearing No.162892355 from the OP No.2 through OPs No.1 & 3 and the installment of Rs.6767/- was fixed on yearly basis to be deducted from the EPF account of the complainant.  It is further argued that the office of LIC, Chandigarh had informed the complainant to get released the maturity benefit of the policy vide letter dt. 13.03.2019 and asked the complainant to send the required documents.  It is further argued that vide letter ENDT/SMK/ACCOUNT/19/8368 dt. 11.02.2019 and letter dt. SMK/ACCOUNT/19/53 dt. 03.04.2019, OP No.3 had requested the OP No.1 to send the original insurance policy documents and discharge form to the office of LIC, Chandigarh but they did not do so.  So, it is a clear cut case of deficiency in service on the part of respondents.

9.             On the other hand, ld. counsel for the OP No.1 argued that the original required demanded document of Policy Bond was sent to OP No.3 on 21.11.2019 by OP No.1, vide letter No.HR/KNL/7363/02/10160 and now the maturity amount against the policy has been received in the office of OP No.1 and the same has been credited in the EPF account of the complainant.

10.            Ld. counsel for the OP No.2 argued that the OP No.2 released the payment amounting to Rs.1,24,988/- i.e. Rs.1,20,560/- alongwith interest amount of Rs.4428/- through NEFT in their account No.10868325100 on 28.11.2019 vide UTR No.N333190325584550.

11.            We have perused all the record available on the file.  The OP No.1 has supported its version by filing affidavit of Sh. Deepak Narwal, Regional Provident Fund Commissioner-II, Employees’ Provident Fund Organization, Karnal, which is Ex.RW1/A, wherein it is mentioned in para No.4 of the affidavit that “the maturity amount of Rs.1,24,988/- against the policy has been received in the office of OP No.1 and the same has been credited in the EPF account of complainant.”  It is also clear from statement of account relating to complainant-Karamvir Singh issued by OP No.1 as per Annexure-R3, mentioned at page No.21 that the maturity amount of Rs.1,24,988/- became due in the EPF account of complainant.  During the course of arguments, ld. counsel for the OP No.2 has placed on file Mark-A on the file, from which it is clear that the amount of Rs.1,24,988/- alongwith interest amounting to Rs.1,36,260/- was transferred in the account of complainant through NEFT generated on 13.12.2022.  Hence, the complainant has failed to prove any deficiency in service on the part of Ops.

12.            Thus, as a sequel of aforesaid discussion, we find no merit in the present complaint and accordingly, the same is hereby dismissed.  There is no order as to costs.  A copy of this order be sent to both the parties free of cost.  File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.     

Announced in open court:

Dt.:07.04.2023.

                                                                (Neelam Kashyap)

                                                                President.

 

(Sunil Mohan Trikha),           (Suman Rana),          

Member.                            Member.

Typed by: Sanjay Kumar, S.G.