BEFORE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CIRCUIT BENCH, RAJASTHAN, JAIPUR


APPEAL No. 1028/2008


LIC of India vs Asha Rani Agarwal


06.03.2009



Before:

Mr. G.S. Hora, Presiding Member

Mr. Sikandar Punjabi, Member


Present:

Mr. Vizzy Agarwal, counsel for the Appellant

Mr. Jitendra Mitruka, counsel for the Respondent


Heard.


This appeal has been filed against the judgement dated 26.3.2008 passed by the learned District Forum, Bharatpur whereby the Appellant has been directed to calculate the units as on the date of the submission of proposal form and apprise the Respondent-Complainant of the same as well as to pay to the Respondent a sum of Rs. 500/- towards mental agony and sum of Rs. 500/- towards litigation expenses within a period of one month.


The Complainant deposited a sum of Rs.50,000/- with the Branch Office, Bharatpur on 19.4.2006 for obtaining policy under Growth Fund in future + scheme for which he submitted proposal on 26.4.2006. The Appellant Corporation sells ULIPs through its selected branches and regional offices only and in case there is no such Branch or Office, the Corporation while accepting such proposal at Non-ULIP Branch obtains an undertaking from the proposer to the effect that the service rendered by Non-ULIP Branch is only for handling the cash for forwarding the same to ULIP Divisional Office and that proposer shall have no claim against the Corporation for non-obtaining the NAV rate of the day, the cash is deposited with the non-designated branch. It is admitted that Bharatpur is Non-ULIP Branch of the Corporation where the amount was deposited. From Bharatpur, the matter was sent to its Divisional Office at Jaipur which after processing the proposal, issued first premium receipt on 12.5.2006 and allotted units of the value as on 12.5.2006. The Complainant's contention was that the proposal was submitted on 26.4.2006 which was not processed for a long time and therefore the value of the units as on 26.4.2006 should be accepted. The learned District Forum also

2


found favour with the submissions made by the Complainant and thus

allowed the complaint as indicated above.


We have considered the arguments raised by both the counsels. There is no doubt about this fact that the matter was ultimately to be processed by the Divisional Office. This is also to be noted that there was undue delay on the part of the Appellant Corporation and therefore the units should have been allotted before 12.5.2006. The report of the underwriter is there on the record which goes to show that the registration is dated 2.5.2006. Review slip was also of 2.5.2006 and the date of commencement has also been shown as 2.5.2006. Keeping all the facts in view, the calculation should have been made as per the value as prevalent on 2.5.2006 and the units should have been allotted accordingly.


Consequently, while allowing the appeal in part, we direct the Appellant Corporation that difference amount calculated on the basis of the above findings may be paid to the Complainant along with amount of compensation and litigation expenses as awarded by the learned District Forum.


The appeal is disposed of accordingly.



Member Presiding Member




Hira Lal