NCDRC

NCDRC

RP/2601/2013

LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA - Complainant(s)

Versus

MANOJ KUMAR SONI - Opp.Party(s)

MR. PANKUL NAGPAL

20 Mar 2017

ORDER

NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
NEW DELHI
 
REVISION PETITION NO. 2601 OF 2013
 
(Against the Order dated 04/04/2013 in Appeal No. 1117/2010 of the State Commission Madhya Pradesh)
1. LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA
THROUGH BRANCH MANAGER, LIFE INSURENCE CORPORATION OF INDIA, BRANCH OFFICE GOPAL GANJ, SAGAR,
SAGAR
M.P
...........Petitioner(s)
Versus 
1. MANOJ KUMAR SONI
S/O SHRI HARI SINGH SONI, R/O MOHAN NAGAR WARD, SAGAR
SAGAR
M.P
...........Respondent(s)

BEFORE: 
 HON'BLE DR. B.C. GUPTA,PRESIDING MEMBER
 HON'BLE MR. DR. S.M. KANTIKAR,MEMBER

For the Petitioner :
Mr. Pankul Nagpal, Advocate
For the Respondent :NEMO

Dated : 20 Mar 2017
ORDER

 

DR. S. M. KANTIKAR, MEMBER

1.       The instant revision petition arises from the impugned order dated 04-04-2013 in First Appeal No.1117/2010 whereby the State Commission allowed the appeal and directed the respondent to pay the appellant/complainant a sum of Rs.41,400/-.

2.       The short question in this instant revision petition is the calculation of the bonus which is admissible to be paid to the insured. The counsel for the petitioner-OP argued that the complainant purchased life insurance policy (LIC) on 06-04-2004 for a period of five years in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- plus bonus. The policy matured on 06-04-2009, therefore, the OP paid the maturity value of Rs.1,00,000/- plus bonus amounting to Rs.17,200/-. However, as per the complainant the bonus should be Rs.55,200/-. Thus, the complainant approached the District Forum, Sagar for the claim of total bonus.

3.       The District Forum dismissed the complaint.  Thereafter, the complainant filed a first appeal before the MP State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bhopal. The State Commission allowed the appeal and directed the OP to pay a sum of Rs.41,400/- within a month.

4.       We have heard the counsel for petitioner.  None was present on behalf of respondent. 

5.       The counsel for the petitioner brought our attention to the insurance policy, the valuation as on 31-03-2008 (Annexure 3), the calculation of bonus made by him. He submitted that the policy was a term policy for the term of 10 years and less. The calculation of the bonus was done as per the following chart:

Policy No.    Sum Assured         Date of commencement   Date of maturity

372646530   1,00,000/-              06-07-2004                      06-07-2009

S. No.

Bonus Year

Policy Year

Bonus declared (in per 1000SA)

Total bonus

No. of years

01.

01-04-2004 to

31-03-2005

06-07-2004 to 06-07-2005

Rs.34/-

34X100=

3400.00

1

2.

01-04-2005 to 31-03-2006

06-07-2005 to 31-03-2006

Rs.31/-

*5/-

31X100=

3100

5X100=

500

2

 

3.

01-04-2006 to

31-03-2007

06-07-2006 to 06-07-2007

Rs.34/-

34X100=

3400

3

4.

01-04-2007 to 31-03-2008

06-07-2007 to 06-07-2008

Rs.34/-

34X100=

3400

4

 

 

Total

Rs.138/-

138X100=

13800

 

          One time simply reversionary bonus declared in March 2005 for Golden Jubilee Year.

          Interim bonus for the year                   Rs.34/-        34X100=3400.00

          Total bonus for the policy term            = 17200.00

6.       In contrast, the State Commission calculated the bonus to the total Rs.55,200/-. The State Commission made its observation as under:

          “The bonus is calculated on the formula 138X4Xinsurance amount/1000 if the policy has continued for more than 4 years. Thus, in the case of the appellant the bonus would be 138X4X100000/1000=Rs.55,200/-. He was also entitled for interim bonus of Rs.3,400/- which added to Rs.55,200/- come to Rs.58,600/-. Out of this Rs.17,200/- have already been paid which leaves a sum of Rs.41,400/- to be paid to the appellant.”  

 

7.       In our view, the calculation produced by the OP in para 6 (supra) is correct because the State Commission erroneously added bonus of each year and arrived at the figure of 138 whereas the interim bonus is declared every year.  Therefore, the calculation should be per year and finally total sum will be calculated by taking the accrued bonus of each year.  Hence, the complainant is entitled to the bonus of 17200 only. 

8.       On the basis of the foregoing discussion, we are of the view that the OPs calculation was correct.   Accordingly, we set aside the impugned order passed by the State Commission and allow this revision petition. The parties shall bear their own costs.

 
......................
DR. B.C. GUPTA
PRESIDING MEMBER
......................
DR. S.M. KANTIKAR
MEMBER

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.