Delhi

StateCommission

FA/510/2013

C.K. SHARMA - Complainant(s)

Versus

LIC OF INDIA - Opp.Party(s)

28 Oct 2015

ORDER

IN THE STATE COMMISSION : DELHI

(Constituted under Section 9 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986)

Date of Decision: 28.10.2015

First Appeal- 510/2013

IN THE MATTER OF:-

Mrs. C.K. Sharma

3^rd Floor-A-119, Sharkarpur

Delhi-110092

                                                                                       …..Appellant

 

Versus

Life Insurance Corporation of India,

through Senior Branch Manager

Branch Unit No. 310

86, Janpath, New Delhi-110001

 

                                                                                    …..Respondent CORAM

(Justice Veena Birbal, President)

(O.P. Gupta, Member (Judicial)

1.     Whether reporters of local newspaper be allowed to see the judgment?

2.      To be referred to the reporter or not?

 

 (Justice Veena Birbal, President

 

1.             This is an appeal under section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act (in short ‘The Act’) against order dated 22.02.2013 in complaint case no. 1032/08 whereby the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (in short, ‘The District Forum’) has dismissed the aforesaid case.

2.             Appellant herein was the complainant before the District Forum. A complaint was filed by her under section 12 alleging therein that her husband Sh. Y.P. Sharma, Advocate had taken the Life Insurance Policy from respondent/OP and had given a cheque no. 129909 dated 29.08.2002 of Rs. 19,559/- in favour of respondent/OP-1. It is stated that the aforesaid cheque was also encashed by the respondent/OP-1. Unfortunately her husband was murdered on 02.03.2003 while he was in the office and a case vide FIR No. 76/2003 was registered under section 302 IPC and information to this effect was communicated to respondent/OP-1. Thereupon, the appellant/complainant had met the officials of respondent/OP-1 for payment of policy amount but the amount was not disbursed to her. Ultimately, complainant had filed the complaint before the District Forum seeking directions against the respondent/OP-1 to pay to the complainant the sum against LIC policy of her husband and also to pay Rs. 1,00,000/- as compensation and 25,000/- towards litigation expenses.

3.             The respondent/OP had contested the case by filing written statement wherein the respondent/OP had stated that Rs. 19,559/- was received in the cash counter of its branch office but the same was without any challan form. It was stated that in lieu of the money deposited, a receipt was also issued at the cash counter as per practice. It was denied that late husband of complainant had taken any Life Insurance Policy as was alleged. It was alleged that the deceased did not submit any proposal form along with supporting documents like medical report of health, special medical report, age proof and other relevant documents to enable the Branch to process the proposal. It was alleged that no contract of insurance ever come into existence as such there was no obligations on the part of the respondent/OP to make the payment. It was alleged that there was no deficiency in service on the part of the OP.

4.             Both the parties had led evidence by way of affidavits before the Ld. District Forum. After considering the material on record the Ld. District Forum held that there was no proposal, there was no acceptance or rejections. It was held that no policy was ever taken by the husband of the appellant nor he submitted any proposal form in his life time to enable the respondent/OP to consider the proposal. The Ld. District Forum held that no concluded contract came into existence in the present case and as such the respondent/OP was not liable to make any payment.

5.             Aggrieved with the aforesaid order present appeal is filed.

6.             During arguments Ld. counsel for the appellant/complainant has fairly conceded that there is no material to substantiate that husband of appellant had filled any proposal from or that an insurance policy as has been alleged was issued in his favour. In these circumstances, findings of Ld. District Forum that there was no concluded contract between the parties as such there was no deficiency on the part of respondent/OP is upheld.

7.             Ld. counsel for appellant has submitted that while dismissing the complaint Ld. District Forum ought to have passed the order for the refund of the amount of Rs. 19,552/- which had been admittedly deposited by the husband of appellant with the respondent/complainant. It is stated that the receipt of Rs. 19,559/- is also admitted by the respondent/OP. It is submitted that the amount is lying with the respondent and that amount be ordered to be refunded in favour of the complainant being wife of the deceased. It is submitted that the said amount was given by way of cheque from the account of the husband of the appellant/complainant.

8.             Ld. counsel for the respondent has submitted that since no details of the deceased were available with the appellant/OP, the amount could not be refunded.  Since the receipts of amount of Rs. 19,553/- deposited by the husband of deceased is admitted by respondent/OP, we direct the respondent/OP to refund the aforesaid amount with 9% interest from the date of deposit till payment in favour of the appellant, subject to her furnishing identification within six weeks of receipt of this order.

                The impugned order stands modified accordingly.

                The appeal stands allowed to aforesaid extent only.

                File be consigned to record room.

(Justice Veena Birbal)

President

                                                                                          

(O.P. Gupta)

Member (Judicial)