Learned counsel for the appellant is present physically.

  2.                   Learned counsel for respondent no.1 is present on video conference.

 3.                      Heard learned counsel for both the parties.

  4.            This is an appeal U/S-15 of erstwhile  Consumer Protection Act,1986(herein-after called the Act).   The appellant was the OP whereas the respondent was the complainant before the learned District Forum. Hereinafter, the parties to this appeal shall be referred to  with reference to their respective status before the learned District Forum.

  5.                Learned counsel for the appellant submitted  that the complainant allegedly had purchased a LIC policy on 28.03.1999 from OP No.1 under Money Back policy. It is alleged inter-alia by the complainant  that after receiving the 2^nd phase and 3^rd phase of money back for Rs.15,000/- and Rs.20,000/- respectively, he found that he has not received the amount of Rs.15,000/- to be payable by OP No.1 in the 1^st phase. He made correspondence with OP No.1  but he did not get any  response of the grievance for which he filed the complaint.

6.               Learned counsel for the appellant further submitted that the OP No.1 filed written version admitting the facts that the complainant

is a consumer under the OP No.1 as  complainant has purchased the policy from OP No.1. It is also averred in written version  that the complainant has received the 1^st phase of money back of Rs.15,000/- through cheque  bearing No.0038915 dtd.28.03.2003 and same amount has also been deducted from LIC account maintained in the Indian Overseas Bank, paid to the complainant. The OP No.1 has also taken pleas that as the matter is agitated after 10 years, they have not maintained the record to verify the received vouchers as per the guidelines. However, they have checked the documents where the said cheque was neither cancelled nor outstanding. So, the OP No.1 submitted to dismiss the complaint.

7.     Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the OP No.3 has filed the written version stating that  the complainant is neither their account holder nor has any contract with the complainant and they have no any plea to take except to reject the complaint petition.

8.    Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that learned District Forum after hearing both the parties passed the following order:-

         Xxx                         xxx            xxx

“ 1. The OP No.1(LIC of India) is hereby directed to pay a sum of Rs.15,000/-(Rupees fifteen thousand)only towards the non-encashment of cheque min question alongwith @ 10% compound interest per annum from dtd.28.03.2003 to till the date of order(i.e.22.04.2015).

2. The above mentioned order is to be carried out within one month from the date of receipt of this order, if fails further interest @ 10 % per annum will be charged on the aforementioned total calculated awarded amount till realization.”

9.    Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that learned District Forum has committed error in law by not taking the facts and law into consideration with proper perspective. Learned District Forum ought to have considered the documents filed by the complainant where complainant has admitted to have received the cheque in question  and submission of same before his bank  SBI for encashment.

10.    Leaned counsel for the appellant submitted that learned District Forum has  not applied judicial mind to the fact that the cheque amount have been deducted from the LIC account maintained in the office of OP No.3-bank. Learned District Forum should have considered the guideline which states that the verification of the document about  cheques etc. should only be maintained for 10 years. Learned District Forum erred in law by not considering the case that the complaint is barred by limitation being not filed within two years from the date of cause of action arises.

11.           Learned counsel for the appellant further contended  that learned District Forum ought to have considered that SBI is also a necessary party to the case and the case is bad for  non-joinder of necessary party because the cheque was submitted by the complainant in his account of SBI for crediting amount to his account. However, he submitted that the entire impugned order being against the law and fact should be set-aside by allowing the appeal.

12.    Learned counsel for the respondent no.1 appearing  on video conference submitted  the written submission  and contended  that the complainant has not admitted in his complaint to have received the cheque in question. Further he submitted that there is guideline issued by IRDA at  Clause-17.3 that the insurance repository  shall preserve records and documents  for a  minimum  period of 10 years from the date of termination or assignment  of the policies and such guideline has not been followed by the appellant. He further submitted that the cheque in question having not been credited  to the account of respondent no.1, appellant has deficiency of service on their part. The case is not barred by limitation as after the termination of the policy the case is filed. In toto he supported the impugned order passed by  the learned District Forum and as such submitted to reject the appeal.

13.           Considered the submission of learned counsel for the parties, perused DFR and impugned order.

   14.            It is well settled in law that the complainant has  to prove  deficiency of service on the part of OPs. On going through the complaint is it admitted fact that the complainant has purchased the LIC policy from OP No.1 and admittedly it is money back policy payable in three phases i.e.  1^st phase- Rs.15,000/-. 2^nd phase 15,000/- and 3^rd phase- Rs.20,000/-.It is not in dispute that the complainant has received money back amount for 2^nd and 3^rd phase.

15.    The complainant has clearly stated in the complaint that he has not received Money back for  Rs.15,000/- towards 1^st phase and accordingly he made correspondence with appellant on 06.05.2014, 09.07.2014, 16.07.2014, 22.08.2014, 22.09.2014 and 24.09.2014 with OP No.1.In the complaint non- receipt of any cheque for the amount thereof towards 1^st phase is alleged. But in  the documents annexed to the  complaint it is stated that on 06.05.2014 complainant  has admitted to have received the cheque No.0038915 dtd.28.03.2003 and after opening of account in SBI he has deposited that cheque. The copy of cheque in question is  also available in the record. Once the cheque in question  has been deposited in his account, it is for the banker to reply about non-payment of the amount concerned but in this case SBI has not been made a party. On the otherhand the written version shows that said amount has already deducted from the account of OP No.1  maintained by OP No.3. The complainant has thus has not come with  clean hand to the learned District Forum. The learned District Forum also has not considered the case by taking all the evidence into consideration. Since, the cheque has been received by the complainant  there is no cause of action to file the complaint.

16.       The cheque allegedly related to 28.03.2003. But the case has been filed in 2014

which is grossly barred by limitation. This aspect has not been discussed  by the learned District Forum. Apart from this the case is bad for non-joinder of necessary party because  SBI has not been impleaded as party in this case.

17.    In view of aforesaid discussions the Commission is of the view that the learned District  Forum has passed the impugned order without taking the relevant materials and evidence into consideration as discussed  and as such not sustainable in law.  Since, the impugned order is improper and  illegal,, same  is set-aside.

         The appeal stands allowed. No cost.

          Free copy of the order be supplied to the respective  parties.                            

          DFR be sent back forthwith.