DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BATHINDA

CC.No.596 of 22-09-2014

Decided on 17-09-2015

Balwinder Ram @ Balwinder Singh aged about 36 years S/o Munshi Ram R/o Village Khialiwala, P.O. Goniana Mandi, District Bathinda.

........Complainant

Versus

1.Life Insurance Corporation of India, Jeevan Jyoti Building, Opp. Bus Stand, Gurdaspur, through its Branch Manager.

2.Life Insurance Corporation of India, Jeevan Parkash Building, Urban Estate, Dugri, Phase-I, Ludhiana, through its Divisional Manager.

3.The Branch Manager, Life Insurance Corporation of India, Jeevan Jyoti Building, Bibiwala Road, Bathinda.

.......Opposite parties

Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986

QUORUM

Sh.M.P Singh Pahwa, President.

Smt. Sukhwinder Kaur, Member.

Sh.Jarnail Singh, Member.

Present:-

For the Complainant: Sh.Tejinder Singh, counsel for the complainant.

For Opposite parties: Sh.Gaurav Aggarwal, counsel for opposite parties.

ORDER

M.P Singh Pahwa, President:-

1. The complainant Balwinder Ram @ Balwinder Singh (here-in-after referred to as complainant) has filed complaint U/s 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against opposite parties Life Insurance Corporation of India and Others (here-in-after referred to as opposite parties).

2. Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that the complainant purchased Money Back Life Insurance Policy bearing No.470839893 for Rs.50,000/- with commencement date 25.2.2002 under plan 124-15 from opposite party No.1 and opted to pay half yearly premium of Rs.2353/- with accident benefit. The date of last payment of the policy is 25.8.2016 and due date of maturity is 25.2.2017.

3. It is alleged that the complainant has been regularly paying the premiums to opposite parties against the abovesaid policy and nothing is outstanding against him. Later on, the complainant shifted to his native village at V.Khialiwala, P.O Goniana Mandi, District Bathinda and started depositing the premiums with opposite party No.3. As per the plan of the abovesaid policy, opposite parties were to pay Rs.12,500/- to the complainant after every five years under money back scheme. The complainant last received the amount under money back scheme from opposite party No.1 against the abovesaid policy due in the month of February, 2007 and next payment was to be made to him by opposite parties in the month of February, 2012.

4. It is further alleged that the complainant did not receive any amount against the abovesaid policy. The complainant has written letters to opposite party No.1 for payment of the amount of Rs.12,500/- due in the month of February, 2012. Opposite party No.1 in response to one of such letter intimated the complainant vide letter dated 12.5.2014 that the cheque No.155983 dated 25.2.2012 for Rs.12,500/- was dispatched on 3.3.2012 through registered post and amount was debited from its account on 12.3.2012, but no account statement was dispatched to the complainant and asked him to verify the entry of the said amount from his bank account or sent the bank statement for the period from 1.2.2012 to 15.3.2012. In reply to the said letter, the complainant wrote letter dated 16.6.2014 to opposite party No.1 and requested it to send the details of account number, name of the bank and name of account holder, in which the cheque alleged to be sent by opposite party No.1 has been encashed. Opposite party No.1 did not give response to the letter of the complainant.

5. It is further alleged that the complainant has also got issued a registered A.D legal notice dated 10.8.2014 to opposite parties for making the payment of Rs.12,500/- with interest, but no response has been received so far.

On this backdrop of the facts, the complainant has alleged deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of opposite parties .He has claimed compensation to the tune of Rs.50,000/- in addition to directions to opposite parties to pay an amount of Rs.12,500/- alongwith interest @ 18% per annum from the month of February, 2012 till the date of payment. Hence, this complaint.

6. Upon notice, opposite parties appeared through counsel and contested the complaint by filing their joint written version. In written version, opposite parties raised the legal objections that the complainant is not consumer as defined under 'Act'. The complaint is not maintainable in its present form. The complaint is false, frivolous and vexatious to the knowledge of the complainant. The complainant has not approached this Forum with clean hands and has suppressed the vital material facts from this Forum. The complainant has already received the payment of Rs.12,500/- in respect of his policy No.470839893 vide cheque No.155983 dated 25.2.2012, which was dispatched on 3.3.2012 and encashed on 12.3.2012. The complaint is barred by limitation. This Forum has no jurisdiction to try and decide the complaint. The complainant has raised many disputed and complicated facts, which require voluminous evidence, which cannot be adjudicated in the Forum. The complaint has been filed with ill motive of extorting money from opposite parties. No proper court fee is paid by the complainant. As such, this complaint is liable to be dismissed.

7. On merits also, opposite parties have controverted all the material averments. However, it is admitted that the complainant deposited some premiums with opposite party No.3, which is under Ludhiana division. Regarding the claim of the compensation qua payment of Rs.12,500/-, opposite parties have reiterated their version as taken in the legal objections and detailed above.

After controverting all other averments, opposite parties prayed for dismissal of complaint.

8. Parties were afforded opportunities to produce evidence.

9. In support of his version, the complainant tendered into evidence copy of legal notice, (Ex.C1); postal receipt, (Ex.C2); copy of insurance policy, (Ex.C3); copies of payment receipts, (Ex.C4 to Ex.C6); copies of letters (Ex.C7 to Ex.C9) and copy of account statement, (Ex.C10).

10. Opposite parties tendered into evidence affidavits of K.L Khichy dated 9.12.2014 and 11.6.2015, (Ex.OP1/1 and Ex.OP1/2) and copy of account statement, (Ex.OP1/3) and closed the evidence.

11. We have heard learned counsel for parties and have gone through the file carefully.

12. It is submitted by learned counsel for complainant that the material facts are not in controversy. It is not disputed that the complainant purchased 'Money Back Insurance Policy' with commencement date 25.2.2002. It is not disputed that opposite parties were to pay Rs.12,500/- after every 5 years under money back scheme and they have paid first installment of Rs.12,500/- on due date. The second benefit of money back policy was payable in the month of February, 2012, which is not paid so far. Opposite parties have relied upon one statement of account, (Ex.OP1/3) to prove that a sum of Rs.12,500/- has been paid to the complainant on 12.3.2012, but this document does not sufficiently prove that opposite parties have paid the amount in question. The complainant has also placed on record the statement of account, which proves that no amount of Rs.12,500/- has been credited in his account. Opposite parties have not disclosed the account number and name of the bank, in which the amount has been credited. Therefore, opposite parties have failed to prove that due amount has been paid to the complainant. Thus, the complainant is entitled for this amount with interest from due date alongwith cost of litigation.

13. Learned counsel for complainant further submitted that of-course, opposite parties have raised the plea of territorial jurisdiction, but one of the branch of opposite parties is situated at Bathinda. The complainant is also paying premiums at Bathinda. Therefore, part of cause-of-action accrued to the complainant at Bathinda also.

To support these submissions, learned counsel for complainant has also cited 2000(1) CPJ 181 in case titled as M/s Saini Motors Vs. Dr.Mohan pal Singh Sadana.

14. On the other hand, learned counsel for opposite parties has submitted that as per the complainant himself, the policy was procured at district Gurdaspur. Of-course, the complainant has shifted at Bathinda later on as alleged by him. There is nothing on record to prove that any transaction has took place with the branch office at Bathinda. Even, if the complainant paid the premiums at Bathinda, he has no cause-of-action to file the complaint at Bathinda.

To support these submissions, learned counsel for opposite parties has cited 2010(1) R.C.R. (Civil) 1 in case titled as Sonic Sugical Vs. National Insurance Company Ltd.

15. Even otherwise, it is proved that an amount of Rs.12,500/- has been paid to the complainant and this amount was debited from the account of opposite parties on 12.3.2012. Copy of account statement of opposite parties, (Ex.OP1/3) proves this fact.

16. We have given careful consideration to these submissions.

17. Before coming to the controversy on merits, it is to be seen whether this forum has territorial jurisdiction to try and decide this complaint. The complainant is resident of Bathinda. One of the branch office of opposite parties is situated at Bathinda. The complainant has also shifted to village Khialiwala, District Bathinda. The complainant has also started depositing the premium's amount at Bathinda. The policy, (Ex.C3) was issued to the complainant at the address of Bathinda. As per Section 11 of 'Act' also, the complaint can be filed at the place where opposite party has branch office. Therefore, keeping in view the facts of the case, we are of the opinion that this Forum has territorial jurisdiction to try and decide the matter.

18. Now, coming on the main controversy. It is not disputed that the complainant purchased one life insurance policy on 25.2.2002. It is also not disputed that an amount of Rs.12,500/- was to be paid to the complainant by opposite parties being money back insurance policy. It is also not disputed that the second money amount was due in the month of February, 2012. It is asserted that the complainant has received this amount. Opposite parties have to prove the payment of Rs.12,500/- to the complainant. Of-course, opposite parties have placed on record their account statement, (Ex.OP1/3) to prove that Rs.12,500/- has been debited from their account in the account of Balwinder, but opposite parties have not produced any other record i.e. copy of cheque or dispatch letter to prove that this amount was paid to the complainant in his account. Even, the names of the bank and a/c No. of complainant are not revealed. The complainant has also placed on record his account statement to prove that he has not received this amount. The record is with opposite parties to connect the payment of Rs.12,500/- to the complainant, but opposite parties have not produced any record to prove this payment to the complainant. Therefore, an adverse inference is to be drawn against opposite parties. In these circumstances, it is concluded that there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties.

19. For the reasons recorded above, the complainant is partly accepted with Rs.2000/- as cost against opposite parties. Opposite parties are directed to release the amount of Rs.12,500/- alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from the due date till the date of payment, to the complainant.

20. The compliance of this order be made within 6 weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of this order.

21. This case could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency.

22. A copy of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost and file be consigned to the record room.

Pronounced in open Forum:-

17-09-2015

(M.P Singh Pahwa)

President

(Sukhwinder Kaur)

Member

(Jarnail Singh)

Member