Present (1) Nisha Nath Ojha,
District & Sessions Judge (Retd.) President
(2) Smt. Karishma Mandal,
Member
Date of Order : 30.09.2016
Nisha Nath Ojha
- In the instant case the Complainant has sought for following reliefs against the Opposite party:-
- To direct the opposite parties to refund Rs. 20,000/- ( Rs. Twenty Thousand only ) along with 24% interest per annum from the year 2005 till the date of payment.
- To direct the opposite party to pay Rs. 50,000/- ( Rs. Fifty thousand only ) as compensation.
- To direct the opposite parties to pay Rs. 5,500/- ( Rs. Five Thousand Five Hundred only ) as litigation costs.
- The facts of this case lies in a narrow compass which is as follows:-
The complainant has asserted that he has taken a Jeevan Surbhi Policy bearing no. 510733255 which got matured on 2008. The policy was money back policy in which Rs. 20,000/- was payable to the complainant after every five years. The said policy was matured to L.I.C. H.F.L. in the year 1999 in leu of the loan amount which was sanctioned. The loan amount was completely paid by the complainant in Nov 2003.
It is further case of the complainant that the policy of the complainant was returned to L.I.C. of India by L.I.C. H.F.L. ( opposite party no. 2 ) in May 2004 as the loan was repaid by the complainant and as such the policy documents were released. Thereafter an installment of money back of Rs. 20,000/- was payable to the complainant in March 2005. The same was not paid by the L.I.C. of India. When the complainant approached the L.I.C. for maturity payment then it came to knowledge of the complainant that a cheque of Rs. 20,000/- bearing no. 266687 was sent to L.I.C. H.F.L. ( opposite party no. 2) and the same was encashed by L.I.C. H.F.L. in April 2005 after closer of the loan account no. 01801790 of the complainant.
The further case of the complainant is that after payment of maturity amount by L.I.C. in April 2008 the complainant requested all the opposite parties for payment of Rs. 20,000/- with interest since the date of encashment of cheque no. 266687 but till date the said amount has not been paid to the complainant.
On behalf of opposite party no. 2 a written statement has been filed that in Para – 10 of the written statement the opposite party no. 2 has stated as follows, “the answering opposite party denied such allegations of the complainant as well as the statement of the other opposite parties L.I.C. of India. When the complainant approached the answering opposite party with his grievances, the answering opposite party took every step to find the alleged cheque, but it had never been received in the office of the answering opposite party. The complainant, on the basis of the statement of the other opposite parties L.I.C. of India, alleged further that the said cheque had been encahsed by the answering opposite party, but such allegations is baseless and without sufficient proof. The answering opposite party tried to search the alleged cheque and entry in its books of accounts, which is now fully computerized. The answering opposite party got its full efforts to find out any trace but in vain. The fact is that the alleged cheque had never been received by the answering opposite party and such question of encashment in the bank accounts of the answering opposite party does not arise.”
From perusal of Para – 11 of the written statement it further transpires that opposite party no. 2 had asked other opposite parties L.I.C. of India to give details of cheque and account of bank in which it had been alleged that cash has been transferred as per allegation of L.I.C. In Support of this fact a letter dated 12.07.2012 issued under signature of the Area Manager L.I.C. of India has been annexed as annexure – B.
It further transpires that opposite party no. 2 had referred this matter to Kolkatta office but the matter is still pending as no record had been found.
From record it appears that on behalf of opposite party no. 1 and 3 i.e. L.I.C. of India a vakalatnama was filed and when they did not file any counter affidavit then vide order dated 01.10.2013 it was directed that in case of non filing of counter affidavit this case shall be heard ex – parte against them.
It is unfortunate that despite several opportunity given to the opposite party no. 1 and 3, the opposite parties have not filed counter affidavit and as such the fact stated by opposite party no. 2 in Para – 10, 11 and 12 of written statement shall prevail.
Heard the learned counsel for opposite party no. 2 and complainant in detail.
The complainant has asserted that he has not been paid Rs. 20,000/- due on 2005 as he was entitled to receive the amount under money back policy despite repayment of loans.
It is further asserted by the complainant that on enquiry he was informed by opposite party no. 1 and 3 (L.I.C. of India) that a cheque of Rs. 20,000/- bearing no. 266687 was sent to L.I.C. H.F.L. opposite party no. 2 and the same was encahsed by opposite party no. 2 in April 2005. This fact has been denied by opposite party no. 2 in Para – 10, 11 and 12 of written statement and vide annexure – B.
From perusal of annexure – B it appears that opposite party no. 2 has requested opposite party no. 1 and 3 to provide detail/certificate of the name and account no. of L.I.C. H.F.L. in which the said cheque had been encahsed along with other details.
As there is no counter affidavit on behalf of opposite party no. 1 and 3, and the opposite party no. 2 has denied to have received the aforesaid cheque hence we have no option but to hold the deficiency on the part of opposite party no. 1 and 3 (L.I.C. of India).
In view of the facts and circumstances we direct the opposite party no. 1 and 3 jointly and severally to refund Rs. 20,000/- ( Rs. Twenty Thousand only ) to the complainant which is due amount of the complainant of the L.I.C. policy in 2005 within the period of two months from the date of receipt of this order or certified copy of this order failing which opposite party no. 1 and 3 will have to pay an interest @ 10% on the said amount i.e. Rs. 20,000/- ( Rs. Twenty Thousand only ) till its final payment.
Opposite party no. 1 and 3 are further directed to pay Rs. 10,000/- ( Rs. Ten Thousand only ) to the complainant by way of compensation and litigation costs within the period of two months.
Accordingly this complaint petition stands allowed to the extent referred above.
Member President
