IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ALAPPUZHA

Wednesday the 31^st    day of  May, 2017

Filed on 04.05.2015

Present

1. Smt. Elizabeth George  (President)
2. Sri. Antony Xavier (Member)
3. Smt. Jasmine.D.  (Member)

in

C.C.No.134//2015

Between

         Complainant:-                                                                  Opposite parties:-

Sri. Roy.B.                                                            1.         Sri. Pavanan

Jobal Home, South Aryad                                                Kandathil Veedu  

Avalookkuunu.P.O                                                           East of Mathrika Library

Alappuzha                                                                         North Aryad .P.O, Alappuzha

                                                                              2.         Branch Manager         

                                                                                          L.I.C of India

                                                                                          Branch Office No.1

                                                                                          Vellakinar, Alappuzha

                                                                              3.         Senior Divisional Manager       

                                                                                          L.I.C. of India

                                                                                          Eranakulam Division

                                                                                                Jeevan Prakash, M.G. Road

                                                                                                Ernakulam

O R D E R

SRI. ANTONY XAVIER (MEMBER)

            The complainant case is that the complainant is the holder Life Insurance policy bearing No. 39289761010 issued by the opposite parties.  The 1^st opposite party caused the complainant to take the said policy from the other opposite parties. As insisted by the 1^st opposite party, the complainant on 23^rd December 2010 took another policy bearing No.778356422 in the name of the complainant’s son.  Subsequently due to some unforeseen financial crunch the complainant was constraint to default the remittance of the premium of both the policies.  The 1^st opposite party impressed upon the complainant that the 1^st policy fell in arrears by an amount of Rs.5000/- and the 2^nd policy by an amount of Rs.10000/-.  The 1^st opposite party made the complainant avail a loan amount of Rs.15750/- from the 1^st policy, and the 1^st opposite party got hold of an amount of Rs. 10000/- from the complainant purportedly for the purpose of clearing the arrears accrued in the 2^nd policy.  Notwithstanding this, the 1^st opposite party remitted a meager amount of Rs.3321/- and unauthorizedly kept back the balance amount of Rs.6679/-  with him.  When the complainant came realize that the 1^st opposite party fleeced the complainant, he approached the other two opposite parties and requested them to redress his grievance caused by the 1^st opposite  party.  The 2^nd and 3^rd opposite parties caused the complainant to call on diverse offices. Strangely till the opposite parties till date never handed back the  afore said amount to the complainant.  The opposite parties’ service is deficient.  The complainant sustained pecuniary loss and mental agony.  Got aggrieved on this the complainant approached this Forum for compensation and relief.

            2. Notices served.  The opposite parties appeared before this Forum the 1^st opposite party filed a separate version.  The 2^nd and 3^rd opposite parties filed version jointly.  The 1^st opposite party contends that the complainant was promptly informed as to the policies being fallen arrears. A loan as obtained from one of the policies, and the arrear was cleared off. According to the 1^st opposite party, the balance amount was handed back to the complainant thereafter.  The 1^st opposite party received no amount from the complainant.  The complainant’s unlawful intention is to harass and defame the 1^st opposite party. The other two opposite parties contention in precise is that they are not liable to any act carried out by the complainant.  According to them Rule 8 (4) of the LIC of India (Agents) Rules emphasis the said aspect specifically and clearly.  According to them the accusation of handing over the money is as against the 1^st opposite party, and these opposite parties have nothing to do with any transactions if any with the complainant and the 1^st opposite party.  There is no deficiency of service or dereliction of duty on the part of the said opposite parties. The complainant is not entitled to any relief sought for from the 2^nd and 3^rd opposite parties, and the complaint is only to be dismissed with cost to the 2^nd and 3^rd opposite parties.

            3. The evidence of the complainant consists of the testimony of the complainant himself, and the documents Ext.A1 to Ext.A4 were marked.  On the side of the opposite parties proof affidavit was filed.

            4. Keeping in view the contentions of the parties, the issues that t croppe up before us for consideration are:-

(a)  Whether the 1^st opposite party held back an amount of Rs.6679/- from the loan the complainant availed against his policy?

(b) Whether the opposite parties committed deficiency of services?

(c)  Whether the complainant is entitled to any relief?

            5. We carefully perused the complainant, versions, proof affidavits and all other materials that from part of the records before this Forum.  The complainant would contend that the complainant availed two policies from the 2^nd and 3^rd opposite parties at the instance and instigation of the 1^st opposite parties.  One of the said policies stood in the name of the complainant’s son.  The complainant was remitting the premium through the 1^st opposite party. In the meantime the 1^st opposite party apprised the complainant that one of the policies fell in arrears, and in order to clear off the said arrears a loan was available from the other policy.  The complainant gave in to the 1^st opposite party’s instruction and obtained a loan amount of Rs. 15750/-  from one of the policies. The 1^st opposite party procured an amount of Rs. 10000/- from the complainant, but a paltry amount of Rs.3321/- was remitted with the policy.  The 1^st opposite party unlawfully kept back the balance amount of Rs.6679/- with him.  Bearing these contentions of the complainant in mind, we meticulously went through the entire materials brought on record by the parties. On perusal of the Exbits, and a close scrutiny of the entire premised of the instant case, we are persuaded to arrive on a conclusion that the 1^st opposite party has misused an amount of Rs. 6679/- over which the complainant has every right. However in light of 8 (4) of the LIC of India (Agents) Rules we are of the considered view that the 2^nd and 3^rd opposite parties are not liable for any act or acts carried out by the 1^st opposite party.  In any event the complainant is entitled to relief.

            In the result, complaint is allowed.  The 1^st opposite party is directed to give back an amount of Rs. 6679/- (Rupees Six thousand Six hundred and Seventy nine only) and 9% interest per annum from the date of complaint till realization to the complainant.  The opposite party is further directed to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.1000/-(Rupees Thousand only) as cost and Rs.2000/-(Rupees Two thousand only) as compensation.  The opposite party shall comply with the order of this court within 30 days of receipt of this order.

Pronounced in open Forum on this the 31^st   day of  May, 2017.

                                                                                                
                                                                                                Sd/-Sri. Antony Xavier (Member) :

                                                                                                Sd/-Smt. Elizabeth George (President):

                                                                                                Sd/-Smt. Jasmine.D. (Member) :

Appendix:-

Evidence of the complainant:- 

PW1                -           Roy.B  (Witness)                    

Ext. A1           -           Copy of the policy certificate

Ext.A2                        -           Copy of the Policy certificate

Ext.A3                        -           Copy  of the letter

Ext.A4                        -           letter of post office Dtd.29.9.2015.

Evidence of the opposite parties:- Nil

                              // True Copy //                                     By Order

Senior Superintendent

To

         Complainant/Opposite parties/S.F.

Typed by:- br/-

Compared by:-