Ld. Advocate(s)
For Complainant: Mukbul Rahaman
For OP/OPs : Raj Kumar Mandal
Date of filing of the case :28.05.2019
Date of Disposal of the case :19.12.2023
Final Order / Judgment dtd.19.12.2023
Failure to repay the maturity money to the complainant by the OP persuaded the complainant to raise his grievance before this Commission. The
(2)
CC/95/2019
complainant Rabindra Nath Biswas made out the case in brief that the complainant had purchased a money back insurance policy (New Bima Gold of LIC of India table 179 terms 16 years, date of commencement 19.11.2010 premium Rs.4,161/- yearly ) for the policy no.428963340 maturity sum assured Rs.1,00,000/-, accidental benefit sum assured Rs.1,00,000/-. As the policy is money back 15% of the sum assured under basic plan at the end of 4th, 8th and 12th policy year. The first money back came after 4 years on 19.11.2014 and the second money back came after 8th years that is 19.11.2018. Second money came back on 19.11.2018 and thereafter, OP one Branch Manager LIC of India, Krishnagar Branch District Nadia sent a cheque for Rs.15,000/- to the house of the complainant through post. Subsequently , the complainant acknowledged the first money back but he did not receive the first money back policy money for Rs.15,000/- till now. Thereafter, the complainant informed to the Branch Manager LIC of India , Krishnagar Branch. At that time the staff of the OP No.1 LIC, Krishnagar assured the complainant to look into the matter. The complainant again went to the office of the OP No.1 on 13.11.2018. On that day OP No.1 informed the complainant that the first money back has already been sent to the complainant vide cheque no.631591 dated 27.11.2014 and the said cheque was encashed on 09.12.2014. Thereafter the complainant submitted an application to the OP on the same day for getting his first money back of Rs.15,000/- stating inter-alia that he has not yet received that money till now but no response came from the OP till date. The said policy is presently in running condition, so the OPs are liable to pay compensation to the complainant for harassment and mental pain and agony. The complainant therefore, prayed for an award for Rs.15,000/- towards first money back policy will interest at the rate of 12% p.a. from 19.11.2014, Rs.50,000/- for harassment , mental pain and agony and cost of litigation.
The OP contested the case by filing W/V denying all the allegations. The OP challenged the case on the ground that the case is bad for defect of parties, barred by law of limitation and there is no cause of action. The positive defence case of the OP in brief is that the complainant filed this complaint by suppressing material facts. The complainant purchased one LIC on 19.11.2010 for S.A Rs.1,00,000/- with plan and term no.179/16. As per policy condition survival benefit under the policy is payable after 4 years from the date of commencement. The first survival benefit of Rs.15,000/- was due on 19.11.2014. Branch made the payment of said due on 27.11.2014 vide cheque no.0631591 drawn on Axis Bank. For payment of S.B dues no documents were required in the year, 2014 as the payment through NEFT was not mandatory at the time. As per record the said cheque was encahsed on 09.12.2014. The complainant lodged complaint after 4 years of due date of first instalment of money back of the said
(3)
CC/95/2019
policy which is absolutely time barred. In the present case the Postal Department and Axis Bank are necessary parties for proper adjudication of this case. The OP claimed that the case is liable to be dismissed with cost. The conflicting pleadings of the parties led this Commission to ascertain the following points for consideration.
Points for consideration
Point No.1.
Whether the case is maintainable in its present form and prayer.
Point No.2.
Whether the complainant is entitled to get the relief as prayed for. Point No.3.
To what other relief if any the complainant is entitled to get.
Decision with Reasons
Point No.1.
This point relates to the ascertainment as to whether the case is maintainable in its present form and prayer. It is the admitted fact that the complainant purchased a policy with the OP under the money back scheme. So the relation between the complainant and the OP comes within the purview of the C.P. Act.
The OP despite challenging that the case is bad for defect of the parties , the case record reveals that it is the OP with whom the entire transaction took place and the relief actually lies against the OPs. The OP could not justify any ground as to why the Postal Department and Axis Bank are proper and necessary parties. The materials in the case record depicts that the case can be properly adjudicated in absence of those two parties. So the case is not bad for defect of parties. Both the parties come under the territorial jurisdiction of this Commission. The amount of relief claimed is also within the limit of pecuniary jurisdiction of this Commission. So the case is maintainable in its present form and prayer.
Accordingly, point no.1 is answered in favour of the complainant.
Point No.2&3.
While deciding this points, regard being had on the evidence adduced by both the parties. OP NO.1 initially did not appear. As per order no.4
(4)
CC/95/2019
the OPs were absent and as such this court passed an order on 20.09.2019 for running the case is ex-parte against them. Subsequently the OP No.1 filed petition for vacating the ex-parte order. The ex-parte order against OP no.1 was vacated vide order no.12 dated 11.12.2022 and his W/V was accepted. So the case is running ex-parte against OP No.2.
The complainant in order to substantiate the case proved some documents. It is the admitted position that the complainant purchased the said LIC policy no.428963340 on 19.11.2010 for S.A Rs.1,00,000/- with survival benefit of Rs.15,000/- due on 19.11.2014.
The OP NO.2 took the defence that the first survival benefit of Rs.15,000/- was paid by the OP vide cheque no. 0631591 on 27.11.2014 drawn on Axis Bank. But the OP could not produce any documents to show that the first money back was paid to the complainant. They also failed to prove as to whether the complainant received the said cheque and encashed through bank.
The complainant further proved annexure-2 by which the complainant lodged a written complaint stating inter-alia that some other Rabindra Nath Biswas impersonated and withdrawn the said cheque but the complainant did not receive that sum of Rs.15,000/-. The said letter was duly received on 13.11.2018 by the OP. The case record also reveals that the complainant duly paid the premium . The complainant further proved the copy of S.B pass book . There is nothing in the case record that the complainant had any account with the Axis Bank. The complainant also lodged the complaint for Redressal of his grievance before the Consumer Assistant Bureau, Nadia but the proceedings failed.
The entire oral and documentary evidence of the complainant in the form of affidavit in chief and document could not be sufficiently discarded. Complainant put some questionnaires to OPs, in which question no.7 reveals that the OP No.2 could not file any document to show that the complainant encashed the said cheque bearing no. 631591 on 09.12.2014. It is also admitted that the said policy is still in running condition.
Thus having the assessed oral and documentary evidence of both the parties and after considering the materials in the case record and the argument advanced by the Ld. Advocate for the both the parties, the commission comes to the finding that the opposite parties did not make payment, of the said money back amount under disputed insurance policy to the complainant. The said acts on the part of the OP tantamounts to deficiency in service which caused harassment and mental pain and agony to the complainant which should be compensated by money.
(5)
CC/95/2019
In the backdrop of the aforesaid observation, the Commission holds that the complainant proved the case against the OPs upto the hilt.
Consequently point no.2 & 3 are answered in favour of the complainant.
In the result the complaint case succeeds on contest with cost.
Hence,
It is
Ordered
that the complaint case No. CC/95/2019 be and the same is allowed on contest against OP No.1 and ex-parte against OP No.2 with cost of Rs.5,000/-. The complainant do get an award for a sum of Rs.15,000/-(Rupees fifteen thousand) towards first money back together with interest @ 8% p.a. from the date of its due till the date of its realisation, Rs.20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand) towards harassment, mental pain and agony and Rs.5,000/- towards litigation from both the parties. Both the OPs are directed to pay a sum of Rs.40,000/-(Rupees forty thousand) only to the complainant jointly and severally within 30 days from the date of passing the final order failing which the entire award money shall carry an interest @ 8% p.a. from the date of its final order till the date of its realisation.
All Interim Applications (I.A) stand hereby disposed of.
D.A to note in the trial register.
The case is accordingly disposed of.
Let a copy of this final order be supplied to both the parties at free of costs.
Dictated & corrected by me
............................................
PRESIDENT
(Shri HARADHAN MUKHOPADHYAY,) ..........................................
PRESIDENT
(Shri HARADHAN MUKHOPADHYAY,)
I concur,
........................................
MEMBER
(NIROD BARAN ROY CHOWDHURY)
