Andhra Pradesh

Nellore

CC/79/2015

Chinni Chinna Brahmaiah, S/o Pichchaiah. Aged:62years - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Senior Branch Manager, Life Insurance Corporation of India - Opp.Party(s)

B.Sreenivasan

28 Aug 2017

ORDER

Date of filing       :  07-09-2015

Date of Disposal :  28-08-2017

 

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

           :: NELLORE ::

                                                       

Monday, this the 28th day of  AUGUST, 2017.

 

            Quorum: Sri Sk.Mohd.Ismail, M.A., LL.B.., President

                           Sri K.Umamaheswara Rao, M.A., B.L., Member 

                           Sri M.Subbarayudu Naidu, B.Com.,B.L., LL.M, Member

                                                    

C.C.No.79/2015        

 

Chinni Chinna Brahmaiah,

S/o.Pichchaiah,

Hindu, aged about 62 years,

Business,

Raju Complex, B.V.Nagar,

A.K.Nagar Post,

PSR Nellore District.                                                      …  Complainant

 

                      Vs.

                                                                       

                                                             

1. The Senior Branch Manager,

Life Insurance Corporation of India,

Near RTC Bus Stand, Atmakur Post and Mandal,

PSR Nellore District.

 

 

2. The Senior Divisional Manager,

Life Insurance Corporation of India,

Dargamitta, Nellore town.                                 …  Opposite parties

 

This matter coming on 16-08-2017 before us for final hearing in the presence of Sri  B.Sreenivasan, Advocate  for the complainant and    Sri D.V.R.Kiran Kumar, Advocate  for the opposite parties Nos.1 and 2 and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Forum passed the following:                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                          

ORDER                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                ( By Sri Sk.Mohd.Ismail, M.A., LL.B.., President)

 

 

1.     The complainant filed this complaint against the opposite parties       1 and 2 directing the opposite parties 1 and 2 to pay a sum of       Rs.76,502-80 ps. with interest  @ 24% p.a. from 01-12-2014 to till date of payment of the complainant.

 

2.  The brief averments of the complaint are as follows:

 

        The complainant is the policyholder of the opposite party’s branch bearing No.650534096. The complainant joined on              01-12-1989 to 01-12-2014 for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/-.  The maturity amounts comes nearly Rs.3,00,000/- and the complainant paid premium regularly to the  opposite party’s branch.  While so, the complainant received a letter on 02-01-2015 stating that the opposite parties have  sent a letter on 09-09-2014 informing  about payment of maturity benefit claim amount of Rs.1,57,603-80 payable under the above policy on 01-12-2014 and requested the petitioner to submit bank account and policy.  The complainant is an agent of the opposite party’s corporation.  Immediately after receipt of the letter dated       09-09-2014 the complainant submitted all the records to the opposite parties and the opposite parties received the same and promised to credit a sum of Rs.1,57,603-80 by way of National Electronic Funds Transfer (NEFT) to the Bank account of the complainant.  The complainant verified his bank account which was submitted to the opposite parties for transfer of funds and an amount of Rs.81,101/- was credited instead of Rs.1,57,603-80 on 02-02-2015.  So, there is due amount of Rs.76,502-80 to the complainant.  The complainant having acquaintance with the opposite parties office requested about the lesser amount credited by the opposite parties but they have not given proper reply. Then the complainant got issued legal notice on     03-03-3015 to the opposite parties and the opposite parties received the said notices and on 10-04-2015 the opposite parties gave reply stating that they found 69 gaps in the premium history statement that’s why they deducted the amount, but they have not given any particulars at what months and years the gaps where happens and if really such gaps are there they will cancel the policy.  Even though, the complainant made request to furnish the statement of account for the premiums paid by the petitioner and the particulars of premium gaps for verifications.  But the opposite parties have not gave particulars and without giving reasonable explanation the opposite parties illegally deducted the amount of Rs.76,502-80 the opposite parties were liable to be pay the amounts to the complainant.  As the opposite parties illegally failed to pay the remaining amount of Rs.76,502-80 to the complainant and there is deficiency of service and dereliction of duties on the part of the opposite parties,  the opposite parties are liable to pay interest @ 24% per annum to the complainant for deficiency of service.  The complainant submits that the opposite parties 1 and 2 failed to pay the remaining amount of Rs.76,502-80ps. to the complainant and committed deficiency in service and hence  the complainant filed this complaint against the opposite parties and submits to allow the complaint with costs.

 

3.     The opposite party No.2 filed written version and opposite party No.1 filed a memo adopting the written version of opposite party No.2 with the following averments:

          that the opposite party No.2 submits that the life assured Chinni Chinna Brahmaiah, the complainant, who is an LIC agent with code No.1851715 under Atmakur (Nellore) branch office, insured his life with LIC of India, Atmakur branch vide policy number 650534096 for a sum assured of Rs.1,00,000/- on 01-12-1989 under Endowment plan with 25 years term and the date of maturity was 1-12-2014 and the life assured converted the mode of payment of premiums from Half-yearly mode to Salary Savings Mode (S.S.S.) for his convenience.  By taking necessary documentation from the complainant and an amount of Rs.355.80 was recovered from his commission from July 2002 onwards.  After completing certain norms the agent and in present case he is policyholder also, was exempted from doing minimum business norms laid by LIC and at the time of maturity this opposite party noticed 69 gaps in respect of premiums due to Corporation hence, this opposite party rightly paid an amount of Rs.81,101/- to the complainant without any delay, by taking discharge.  Basing on the preliminary submissions opposite parties submits that the complainant is entitled only a sum of Rs.22,000/-  and submits for the dismissal of the complaint against the opposite parties 1 and 2 with costs.

 

4.  On behalf of the complainant, PW1 was examined and Exs.A1 to A5 were marked. 

 

5.  On behalf of the opposite parties, RW1 and RW2 are examined and Exs.B1 to B5 were marked.

 

6. The complainant was examined as PW1, on behalf of the opposite party No.1 RW1 was examined, and on behalf of the opposite party No.2, RW2 examined. 

 

7.  Ex.A1 is a letter dated 02-01-2015 issued by opposite party No.1, Ex.A2 is the office copy of the legal notice issued on behalf of the complainant to the opposite parties 1 and 2, Ex.A3 is the served post acknowledgement on opposite party No.1, Ex.A4 is the served acknowledgement on opposite party No.2, Ex.A5 is a reply legal notice dated 10-04-2015 issued on behalf of the opposite party No.1, Ex.B1 is the photo copy of policy, Ex.B2 is a letter of authorization, Ex.B3 is an application for conversion to SSS Mode Premium Annexure-I(B) dated 17-06-2002, Ex.B4 is  a receipt and Ex.B5 is the SSS Ledger for the  policy bearing No.650534096.

 

6.   Written arguments on behalf of the both parties filed and the same were considered.

 

7.   Arguments on behalf of the learned counsels for the both parties heard.

  

8.    Now, the points for consideration are:

  (1) Whether the complainant is entitled for a sum of

       Rs.76,502-80ps. with interest @ 24% p.a., from the

       date of 01-12-2014 as prayed?

 (2) Whether there is any deficiency of service by opposite parties

      1 and 2 towards complainant?

 3) To what relief the complainant is entitled?

 

 9. POINTS 1 AND 2: Both these two points are taken up together for our consideration as these two points are interrelated.

 

     The learned counsel for the complainant submits by relying upon Exs.A1 and Ex.B1 that the complainant paid the entire premium amount towards the Ex.B1 policy and inspite of receiving of the entire amount, the opposite parties 1 and 2 failed to pay the remaining due amount under Ex.B1 policy and inspite of issuing of Ex.A2 legal notice as the opposite parties failed to pay the remaining amount the complainant filed this complaint against the opposite parties and submits to  allow the complaint with costs. 

 

 10.    On the other hand,  the learned counsel for the opposite parties submits by relying upon Ex.B1 that the opposite parties 1 and 2 failed to pay the entire premiums and committed default  in payment of premiums and on calculation of the amount, the complainant is entitled only for Rs.22,000/- and hence the claim of the complainant is not maintainable and submits for the dismissal of the complaint against the opposite parties 1 and 2 with costs.

 

11.   In view of the arguments submitted by the learned counsels for both parties and as seen from the evidence of the both parties, both parties raised their version by filing their chief affidavits. As seen from the Ex.B1, the complainant did not pay the entire premiums as stated by him.  The contention of the opposite parties 1 and 2 is that the complainant committed default and the complainant did not pay the entire premium amounts as mentioned below:

 

11/2007                                        (1 gap)

6/2008 and 7/2008                       (2 gaps)

2/2010 to 6/2010 & 10/2010         (6 gaps)

5/2011 & 12/2011                         (2 gaps)

3/2012 to 12/2012                       (10 gaps)

1/13                                              (1 gap)

3/2013 to 11/2013                         (9 gaps)

3/14 to 11/2014               (9 terminal gaps)

Total                                     40 gaps

 

         In view of the contention of the opposite parties and the contents of Ex.B5, which shows that the complainant failed to pay the 40 premiums (gaps).  To dispute the version of the opposite parties and the contents of the Ex.B5, the complainant did not file any proof of the evidence to show that he paid entire premium to the opposite parties towards policy.  In the absence of any such evidence, it is difficult to say that Ex.B5 was created by the opposite parties.  As there is no convincing evidence by the complainant about the payment of 40 gaps (installments) and in view of the contention of the opposite parties 1 and 2 and by relying Ex.B5, we are of the opinion that the complaint  did not paid 40 gaps,  and hence the complainant  is not entitled for Rs.76,502.80.   In view of the above facts, we are of the opinion that there is no deficiency of service by the opposite parties towards complainant. However, in view of the admission of the opposite parties 1 and 2, we are of the opinion that the complainant is entitled Rs.22,000/- only.  In view of the above said discussion, we answered point No.1 partly in favour of the complainant and against the opposite parties 1 and 2 and in view of above facts, we answered point No.2 against the complainant and infavour of the opposite parties 1 and 2.

 

POINT NO.3:  In view of our answering on points No.1 and 2 accordingly, the complaint filed by the complainant against the opposite parties 1 and 2 has to be allowed partly.

 

     In the result, the complaint is  allowed partly for Rs.22,000/- (Rupees twenty two thousand only) with interest @ 9% p.a. on Rs.22,000/- from the date of order i.e., 28-08-2017 till the date of payment. 

 

      The opposite parties 1 and 2 are granted 30 (thirty) days time for payment of Rs.22,000/- with interest on communication of the order, but in the circumstances, no costs. 

 

      The opposite parties 1 and 2 are directed to comply the award within 30 days, on communication of the order.

 

Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by her and corrected and pronounced by us in the Open Forum this the   28th  day of  AUGUST, 2017.    

 

             Sd/-                              Sd/-                                 Sd/-                          

        MEMBER                          MEMBER                          PRESIDENT

 

 

 

 

 

  APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

 

`         WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR COMPLAINANT:

 

PW1

22-07-2016

:

Chinni Chinna Brahmaiah, S/o.Pichchaiah, Hindu, aged about 62 years, business, residing at Raju Complex, B.V.Nagar, A.K.Nagar Post, PSR Nellore District.

 

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR OPPOSITE PARTIES:

 

RW1	21-06-2016		S.Raghunath, S/o.Sree Rama Sarma, Hindu, aged about 52 years and working as A.O. in the 2nd opposite party’s office and residing at Nellore.
RW2	21-06-2016		S.Raghunath, S/o.Sree Rama Sarma, Hindu, aged about 52 years and working as A.O. in the 2nd opposite party’s office and residing at Nellore

 

                                                                         

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR COMPLAINANT:

 

Ex.A1	02-01-2015	:	Letter in Ref.BO 65J/Claims addressed by the opposite parties to the complainant.
Ex.A2	03-03-2015	:	Office copy of the legal notice got issued by the counsel for the complainant to the opposite parties along with registered postal receipts.
Ex.A3	04-03-2015	:	Acknowledgement card of 1st opposite party.
Ex.A4	04-03-2015	:	Acknowledgement card of 2nd opposite party.
Ex.A5	10-04-2015	:	Reply letter sent by the 1st opposite party to the advocate for the complainant.

 

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR OPPOSITE PARTIES:                           

Ex.B1	28-03-1990	:	Photostat copy of policy bearing No.650534096 issued by the opposite parties in favour of the complainant.
Ex.B2		:	Consent letter of authorization given by the complainant to modify the mode of payment in form No. NB/SSS/33.
Ex.B3	17-06-2002	:	Addendum to the application for conversion to SSS Mode Premium Annexure-I(B).
Ex.B4	30-01-2015	:	Discharge voucher bearing No.0193067 given by the complainant for Rs.81,101/-.
Ex.B5		:	System generated copy (duly certified) showing the gaps of 40

 

                                                                                 

         Id/-                                                                          PRESIDENT

Copies to:

 

1) Sri B.Sreenivasan, and Sri B.Balapradeep, Advocates, Nellore.

 

2) Sri  D.V.R.Kiran Kumar, Advocate, D.No.25-9-336, Z.P.Colony,

    A.K.Nagar, Nellore – 524 004

 

 

Date when order copies were issued: