Date of filing : 18.9.2018
Judgment : Dt.13.1.2019
Mrs. Balaka Chatterjee, Hon’ble Member
This petition of complaint is filed under section 12 of the C.P.Act, 1986 by Rajat Dasgupta alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties (referred as OP hereinafter) (1) The Branch Manager, LICI and (2) The Chairman, LICI.
Case of the Complainant, in brief, is that the Complainant obtained an LICI policy from OP No.1, being Sl. No.412595810 which was matured on 3.4.2018 and on 22.3.2018 the Complainant submitted all relevant documents with OP No.1 so that OPs could disburse the maturity amount on the due date but the said maturity amount of Rs.3,12,300/- had not been credited to the account of the Complainant and being aggrieved the Complainant vide mail dt.12.4.2018 and 24.4.2018 lodged complaint to the Controlling office of the OP No.1 but that yielded no fruitful result. The Complainant has further stated that due to non-disbursement of maturity amount he had to pay interest @11% p.a. on his overdraft account being maintained by the Oriental Bank. The Complainant has further stated that the OP No.1 credited maturity amount of Rs.3,12,300/- in the account of the Complainant only on 5.5.2018 instead of 3.4.2018 i.e. after 33 days from the date of maturity and the Complainant had to incur loss of interest amount for 33 days @ 11% p.a. amounting Rs.3,1056.89 and the Complainant vide letter dt.7.5.2018 asked the OP No.1 to disburse the said interest amount and to provide statement of bonus but the OPs did not make any response and, therefore, the Complainant vide mail dt.18.6.2018 requested the Controlling office of the OP No.1 to deliver the premium receipts to the Complainant which was kept with the agent of OP No.1 namely Shri Anindya Kundu. It is further stated by the Complainant that the OP No.1 credited an amount of Rs.2,188/- to the A/C of the Complainant on 13.8.2018 which was less than actual interest of 33 days on the matured amount of Rs.3,12,300/- @ 11% p.a. It is also stated by the Complainant that a mediation was taken place in the office of the Consumer Affairs Department on 20.8.2018 in presence of representative of the OP No.1 who stated that an amount of Rs.2,188/- had been paid to the A/C of the Complainant which was the maximum amount that could be paid by the OP No.1 as per their norms. He further stated that statement of Bonus could not b e provided and in respect of delivery of premium receipt, it was submitted that the said matter was completely interse dispute between the policy holder and agent and, therefore, finding no other alternative way the Complainant by filing the instant consumer complaint prayed for direction upon the OPs to pay Rs.948/- along with interest @ 11% p.a. from 13.8.2018 till the final payment, to pay Rs.1,000/- towards compensation and Rs.1,000/- as litigation cost, to provide statement of bonus, to provide original/or duplicate premium receipt, to transfer the running policies of the Complainant annexed copy of policy bearing serial No.412595810, mail dt.12.4.2018 and 24.4.2018, account statement for A/C No.093850115000979, mail issued from the end of Oriental Bank, letter issued by the Complainant to OP No.1 dt.14.5.2018.
The OPs contested the case by filing written version denying and disputing all the allegations made out in the petition of complaint stating inter alia, that the OPs intimated the Complainant on 8.3.2018 to furnish required documents for payment of maturity amount and some discrepancies such as non submission of cheque leaf clearly mentioning the name and A/C No. of the Complainant had been noticed which caused delay in disbursement of maturity amount and interest was also paid as per guideline and, therefore, there was no deficiency on the part of the OP and, accordingly, prayed for dismissal of the case.
The Complainant adduced evidence in respect of which OPs filed questionnaire and the Complainant filed reply.
The OPs by filing a petition prayed for treating their written version as their evidence. Prayer was allowed to which Complainant filed questionnaire and the OPs filed reply.
Points for determination
- Whether there is deficiency on the part of the OPs
- Whether the Complainant is entitled to the reliefs as prayed for
Decision with reasons
Point Nos. 1 & 2 : Both the points are taken up together for comprehensive discussion and decision.
Admittedly, the Complainant was under coverage of insurance vide policy, bearing Serial No.412595810 which was matured on 3.4.2018.
It is also admitted that the said policy was matured on 3.4.2018 and the maturity amount was credited to the account of the Complainant on 5.5.2018.
The Complainant alleged that due to non-payment of maturity amount on the date of maturity he had to pay interest @ 11%p.a. to his overdraft A/C since the maturity amount was to have been credited to the said overdraft account.
It appears from mail dt.18.6.2018, 20.6.2018 and 212.6.2018 that the Complainant was informed about the rate of interest charged on the A/C being No.09385015000979. It further appears from the customer details of the statement for A/C No.09385015000979 that the said amount has been opened in favour of one Soumyendu Roy and the Complainant is the joint holder of the said A/C. It also appears from the said statement that an amount of Rs.3,12,300/- was credited to the said A/C on 5.5.2018 through NEFT which suggests that the Complainant deposited the amount credited in favour of him by the OP on 5.5.2018 on the said overdraft A/C of the Complainant. It is the specific defence of the OPs that the Complainant was asked to deposit the required documents including cheque leaf on 8.3.2018 but the same had not been deposited properly since the name and A/C No. of the Complainant had not been mentioned therein clearly. However, admittedly the required documents were deposited on 22.3.2018.
Now the moot point is whether the Complainant has suffered loss to the tune of Rs.948/-as the Complainant claimed to have paid interest credited to his overdraft account due to non-payment of maturity amount by the OP on the date of maturity.
In this regard, there is no averment as to any lien in respect of the LIC policy in question to the overdraft account have been found within four corners of the petition of complaint nor even in the affidavit on evidence adduced by the Complainant.
Moreover, it is not clear that how the overdraft A/C holder namely Soumyendu Roy is connected to the instant policy in question.
We also observed that the OP No.1 has paid interest amount of Rs.2,188/- for the delayed period of payment which shows their good gesture to the insured.
Under such circumstances, we are inclined to hold that the Complainant has failed to prove deficiency in service on the part of the OP.
Point Nos.1 & 2 are decided accordingly.
In the result, the Consumer Complainant does not succeed.
Hence
ordered
That CC/568/2018 is dismissed on contest but without any order as to cost.
