1. This is a petition filed by one Vishwajeet Paul Chowdhury (hereinafter referred to as the petitioner) against Branch Manager, Life Insurance Corporation of India (LICI) (hereinafter referred to as the opposite party) U/S 12 of the consumer Protection Act, 1986 praying for recovery of money, compensation and other reliefs.
2. Facts and circumstances for filing of the aforesaid petition as narrated by the petitioner are as follows:-
The complainant is an Indian Citizen and he opened an LICI policy under the head of “Bima Bachat” in the LICI of Hojai branch on last 24/11/2013 for a period of 9 (Nine) years with terms that 15% of the sum assured will be paid to the policyholder at the end of 3rd and 6th of the policy years. The complainant stated that three years of the said policy was completed on last 24/11/2016 but LICI, Hojai did not release the 15% of the sum assured in his favour till last week of February,2017. The petitioner stated that he personally visited the Branch Manager, Hojai who without giving any consolation misbehaved with him. He further stated that he on last 01/03/2017 after enquiring his balance in his SBI account came to know that LICI deposited Rs.2,22,750.00 in his Bank account instead of guaranteed amount of Rs.2,25,000.00. He alleged that if his amount would have been deposited in time, then he could earn Rs.1,00,000.00 by investing the money in some other business. Hence, he prays before this Commission to pass an order directing the opposite party to pay him compensation of Rs.1,00,000.00.
The opposite party filed his written version denying all the allegation levelled against him by the complainant. By his written version, the opposite party submitted that there is no cause of action for the complainant to file the petition and that his petition does not attract the provision of section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act. The opposite party admitted the fact of opening an L.I.C. policy by the complainant and submitted that the sum assured was for Rs.15,00,000.00. The opposite party further submitted that the survival benefit for the said policy was due for payment of Rs.2,25,000.00 subject to deduction of Income Tax as per income tax rules. The opposite party further added that discharge voucher dated 05/09/2016 was sent to the life assured who submitted the same in his office on last 02/10/2016 and NEFT was entered against the policy on last 07/10/2016 as per bank details submitted by the complainant. The opposite party further submitted that the on last 03/09/2016, they issued letter to the complainant specifically mentioning that the L.I.C. policy was not exempted under section 10(D) of Income Tax Act, 1961 and as such, they may be required to deduct income tax at source from the benefited amount of the policy and hence, asked the petitioner to provide them Xerox copy of his PAN card and in that case 1% from the benefited amount would be deducted otherwise 20% of the benefited amount would have to be deducted. The opposite party further stated that on last 27/02/2017, the complainant visited their branch and provide copy of his PAN card and on the same day, LICI deposited the benefited amount in the bank account of the petitioner after deducting 1% i.e. Rs.2250.00. The opposite party stated further that the delay of payment was mainly due to unavailability of PAN card and only for benefit of the complainant as because if LICI would have deposited the assured sum without a PAN card, in that case, they would have required to deduct Rs.45,000.00 from the benefited amount. Hence, the opposite party prays for dismissal of the complaint petition filed by the complainant .
Upon pleadings of the parties the following point for decision are follows:-
- Whether the complainant suffered loss due to delayed payment of 13% of the assured amount of his LICI policy by the opposite party and whether the conduct of the opposite party amounts to deficiency of service?
- Whether the complainant is entitled for a relief as prayed for?
The finding and reasons thereof:-
For the sake of convenience both the points are taken together for discussion and decision.
It is argued on behalf of the complainant that he suffered loss due to delayed payment of his benefited amount by the opposite party in as much as he would be able to earn at least Rs.1,00,000.00 if the payment would have been made by the opposite party on time. Contrary to this it is argued on behalf of the opposite party that the delay of the payment of benefited was mainly due to the unavailability of the PAN card of the complainant because without having the said PAN card, the opposite party would be required to deduct Rs.45,000.00 i.e. @20% rate from the benefitted amount and as because the claimant did not furnish the photocopy of his PAN card at the earliest, so, there was a delay in making the payment and such delay was for the benefit of the policyholder.
The petitioner adduced his evidence as P.W.1. In his evidence he deposed that he opened an LIC policy of Hojai Branch and the survival benefit of Rs.2,25,000.00 i.e. 15% of the assured sum was due to be paid to him at the end of 3 years. He deposed that the LICI delayed his payment for three months and only on 27/02/2017 released Rs.2,22,750.00 of the benefited amount in his bank account instead of Rs.2,25,000.00 and when he enquired about delayed payment, the Chief Manager misbehaved with him. He deposed that he suffered loss of Rs.1,00,000.00 due to delayed payment of his benefited amount as because he could have earned that amount by investing the money in other business.
The opposite party in support of his written version examined one Puranjan Bora, A.O, of the Claims Department LICI, Hojai as D.W.1. In his evidence D.W.1 deposed to the effect that on last 05/09/2016 the discharge voucher of the LICI policy of the complainant for payment of survival benefit was sent to him and the same was submitted in the office of opposite party on last 02/10/2016 by the complainant and NEFT was entered against the policy on 07/10/2014 as per bank details submitted by the complainant. Further evidence of the D.W.1 is that on 05/09/2016, the opposite party issued a letter to the complainant specifically mentioning that the policy was not exempted under section 10(D) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and as such, they may be required to deduct tax at source from the benefitted amount of the policy and hence, asked the complainant to provide them with the Xerox copy of his PAN card and in that case 1% from the benefitted amount would be deducted otherwise 20% from the benefited amount would be required to be deducted. The D.W.1 further deposed that on 27/02/2017 the complainant visited their office and provide the Xerox copy of his PAN card and thereafter, payment has been made on the same day after deducting Rs.2250.00 @1% from the benefited amount. The D.W.1 further deposed that if the payment would have been made without PAN card of the complainant, then in that case, the opposite party would be required to deduct Rs.45,000.00 @20% from the benefited amount and as such, the delay was only for the benefit of the complainant and not intentional.
We have duly considered the submission made by both the parties. It is seen that the L.I.C.I. already deposited 13% of the assured amount in the bank account of the complainant after deducting 1% as per Income Tax rule. Complainant submitted that if the benefitted amount would have been deposited in his bank account in time, then, he would be able to earn at least Rs.1,00,000/- by investing the money in other business. However, we are unable to accept the contention of the petitioner that the delay of depositing the benefitted amount was only due to the lapse ore negligent act of the opposite party. There always exist some rules and regulation which bind the authorities while taking action in connection with every act done by them. In the instant case, the opposite party contended and adduce evidence that Pan Card of the complainant is required for depositing the benefitted amount and in that case 1% from the benefitted amount would be deducted otherwise 20% of the benefited amount would be required to be deducted. The complainant has not disputed such facts. It is also not disputed by the complainant that on last 05/09/2016, the opposite party issued a letter to him specifically mentioning that his policy was not exempted under section 10(D) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and as such, they may be required to deduct tax at source from the benefitted amount of the policy and hence, asked the complainant to provide them with the Xerox copy of his PAN card. The opposite party also contended that without the pan Card of the complainant he would be required to deduct Rs.45,000.00 from the benefitted amount which is a huge amount. The complainant did not dispute the facts that on last 27/02/2017, he visited the office of the opposite party and provide the Xerox copy of his PAN card and thereafter, payment has been made on the same day in his bank account by the opposite party after deducting Rs.2250.00 @1% from the benefited amount. Thus, we are of view that the delay in depositing the benefitted amount by the opposite party was mainly due to unavailability of the PAN card of the complainant and hence, we are unable to accept the contention of the complainant that there was a deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party to pay 13% of the assured amount of the policy of the complainant.
Hence, in view of above discussion points (i) and (ii) are answered in negative.
O R D E R
11. In view of the above discussion, it is found that the petitioner has failed to prove that there was a deficiency of service on the part of opposite party in the instant case.
Accordingly, the prayer made by the petitioner U/S 12 of the Consumer protection is dismissed on contest with cost.
Inform all the parties concern.
Given under the hand and seal of this Commission, we signed and delivered this Judgment on this 23rd Day of April 2021.
