Haryana

StateCommission

A/829/2018

SULTAN SINGH - Complainant(s)

Versus

LIC OF INDIA - Opp.Party(s)

VIKAS DEEP

12 Mar 2019

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

               

                                                         First Appeal No.829 of 2018

Date of Institution:03.07.2018                                                               Date of Decision: 12.03.2019

Sultan Singh S/o Sh. Sh.Ram Chander, R/o V.P.O. Mohana, Tehsil & District Sonepat.

…..Appellant

Versus

1.      L.I.C.  of India, Sector-15, Sonepat, through its Branch Manager.

2.      LIC of India, Branch Unit No.0041, SSS Unit, Kolkatta, DO-1, United India Building, 22 CR Avenue, Kolkatta, through its Manager.

3.      LIC of India, Unit No. 12 G, Flat No.5, 2^nd Floor, 9, Vardhman Trade Centre, Nehru Place, New Delhi.

…..Respondents

CORAM:             Mr. Ram Singh Chaudhary, Judicial Member.

Present:              Ms.Nidhi Jain, Advocate counsel for the appellant.

Mr. Rajneesh Malhotra, Advocate counsel for the respondents.

                                                   O R D E R

RAM SINGH CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

          The brief facts given rise for the disposal of the present appeal are as such, complainant has purchased insurance policy from the O.Ps. on 28.06.1992 and Rs.175/- per month was to be deducted from his salary. The policy was matured on 28.06.2007. It was come to the notice of the complainant that maturity date is 28.05.2012.  He approached the Ops and requested to release the maturity amount, but, they continued to deduct the installments.  Upon request of the complainant, the Ops have sent an amount of Rs.55325/- to him and an amount of Rs.3150/- as excess amount, which was wrongly deducted by the Ops.  The opposite parties wrongly deducted the installments for the last 88 months i.e. more than seven years.  Thus there was deficiency in service on the part of the O.ps.

2.      O.Ps. filed reply controverting her averments and alleged that that date of maturity of the policy was 28.06.2017 and not 28.05.2012. LIC, SSS had no access to the bank account of the complainant.  They deducted monthly premium from the bank account of the complainant till 9/2014. The maturity amount of Rs.55325/- was paid to the complainant.  Thus there was no deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps.  Other averments made in the complaint were refuted and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

3.      After hearing both the parties, District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Sonepat (In short “District Forum”) partly allowed the complaint  vide impugned order dated 18.05.2018 and directed the O.Ps. to make the payment of Rs.10802/- to the complainant and further to compensate the complainant to the tune of Rs.2000/- for rendering deficient services, for unnecessary harassment and under the head of litigation expenses.

4.      Feeling aggrieved therefrom, complainant-appellant has preferred this appeal.

5.      This argument have been advanced by Ms.Nidhi Jain, the learned counsel for the appellant as well as Sh.Rajneesh Malhotra, the learned counsel for the respondents. With their kind assistance the entire records as well as the original record of the District Forum including whatever the evidence has been led on behalf of  both the parties had also been properly perused and examined.

6.      An insurance policy was issued on 28.06.1992  for the period of 15 years is not in dispute. The maturity date of the insurance policy was 28.06.2007.  However, due to the negligence of the banker, the monthly subscription of the insurance policy continued to be deducted out of the bank account of the complainant. The Ops continued to deduct the monthly premium until September 2014 and deducted total 88 monthly installments in excess.  However, the amount of the maturity, which was due on 28.06.2007 was not paid by the O.Ps.  It came into the notice of the parties concerned that the excess amount of the premium had been charged from the complainant for a period of 8 years.  It was admitted while addressing the arguments that whatever the excess amount of the premium was received by the defence personnel. The competent authorities had been returned the excess amount to the complainant, which was accepted without any protest.

7.      Now the question arises, whether the maturity value of the insurance policy initially issued for a period of 15 years for a sum of Rs. 55,325/- which was paid after eight years, the complainant could be compensated by way of awarding the interest.

8.      In the considered opinion of this Commission that there is no justification for not to make the payment of the insured maturity value of the insurance policy after inordinate delay for a period of eight years.  As such, the complainant is entitled to get the interest from 28.06.2007 @ 12% per annum  on the deposited amount of maturity,  till realization.  A period of three months is given to the O.Ps to give the interest to the complainant, failing which the complainant would be entitled to get the interest @ 18% per annum for the defaulting period.

9.      With this modification, the appeal stands disposed off.

 

March 12th, 2019                                     Ram Singh Chaudhary,                                                                          Judicial Member                                                                                        Addl.Bench                 

S.K.