Adv. for Complainant: J.Paul
Adv for OP/OPs : Rajkumar Mondal
Date of filing of the case :03.07.2018
Date of Disposal of the case : 08.09.2022
Final Order / Judgment dtd.08.09.2022
- This is a complaint u/s 12 the consumer protection Act 1986 lodged by aforesaid complainant namely Sri Kanailal Biswas against the Chief Manager Life Insurance Corporation of India Krishnagr Branch I alleging deficiency of service.
- Complainant alleged that he is the consumer and OP is the service provider under the Consumer Protection Act 1986.
COMPLAINANT’S ALLEGATION
- Fact of the case as it transpires from the petition of complaint that complainant had purchased a policy vide no. 424831482 in the name and style as “Bima Gold” which is still now running and complainant paying the premium of the policy. In terms of the said policy complainant was entitled to get Rs. 25,000/- on 31.03.2018 but complainant did not get the same from the OP. On 02.04.2018 wife of complainant enquired the matter then staff of the OP admitted their guilt and asked to submit some information and supplied one form. Complainant through his wife supplied those information and also submitted the aforesaid form. As the complainant did not get any fruitful
Case no. CC/82/2018
result, then he on 20.04.2018 issued a notice to the OP demanding the aforesaid amount which was due on 31.03.2018 but OP did not make any payment nor give any reply. On 30.05.2018 complainant received an account payee cheque vide no 011273 amounting to Rs. 25,000/-. Complainant sent a demand notice to the OP on 01.06.2018 claiming compensation @Rs.500/- per day for the period from 01.04.2018 to 30.05.2018 but OP did not make any payment regarding the aforesaid compensation. Hence, the complainant filed this case
4. Complainant prayed following relief :-
(a) Rs. 30,000/- ( Rs.5,00/- per day) from 01.04.2018 to 30.05.2018 along with interest.
(b) Interest @ 12 % per annum.
( c) Rs.20,000/- for compensation.
(d). Costs and further interest.
DEFENCE OF THE OP.
5(a). OP contested this case by filing W/V contending inter-alia that present complaint is not maintainable in its present form, complainant has no cause of action to file this case, complaint is misconceived, malafide and motivated one, complaint is bad for defect of parties, complaint is barred by law of limitation,
Complaint is barred by principle of estoppels, waiver and acquisance.
He also denied allegation of petition of complaint made in Para- 10, 12 and 13.
5 (b) He admitted that complainant is a policy holder in respect policy No. 44831482 and commencement of the said policy is 25.03.2006 and complainant is entitled to get Rs.25,000/- after expiry of every 4 years from the date of commencement of said policy .
5(c) As per instruction of RBI payment are being made through NEFT and there was no NEFT entry in this policy as such SB due for the year 2018 could not made and policy holder submitted NEFT was restricted due to closing of year and as per instruction of the controlling office where NEFT mandate form were not received and as such all outstanding SB claims paid by chaque on 31.03.2018 and SB payment for the due on 25.03.2018 was also made by chaque on 31.03.2018 vide chaque No. 0608470 but unfortunately said printed chaque was illegible due to mechanical defect and the office of the OP hold the chaque with a view to re issue fresh chaque on a convenient date and as closing work was continued up to 16.04.2018 and as such some days delay has been caused to re issue fresh chaque.
Case no. CC/82/2018
5(d) There was no willful latches on the part of the OP and there is no unfair trade practice on the part of OP. Complainant is not entitled to get any interest in delayed
payment as per his claim and not entitled to get any compensation for pain and suffering. OP is always ready and willing to pay interest for delayed payment and due amount for the delayed payment will be and @ banking interest. He prayed for necessary order.
6.(a) It is admitted position that the complainant is a policy holder as per policy No. 424831482 and commencement of the said policy is 25.03.2006 and complainant is entitled to get Rs.25,000/- after expiry of every 4 years from the date of commencement of the said policy.
6(b) It has denied by the OP that there is no negligence for unfair trade practice on the part of the said OP.
7. (a) The following points have been framed for discussion :-
POINTS TO BE DECIDED:-
- Is the complainant a consumer under the OP, vis- a –vis the OP is the service provider towards the complainant?
- Is the case maintainable?
- Has the complainant any cause of action to file this case?
- Is the case barred by limitation?
- Is the complainant entitled to get the reliefs as prayed for?
- To what other relief or reliefs is the complainant entitled?
8.(a) To prove the case complainant himself filed affidavit-in-chief in support of his case.
OP made some question to the complainant and complainant gave answer of all the questions.
8.(b) Complainant produced the original policy vide Policy No. 424831482.
8. (c) He also filed Xerox copy of aforesaid policy Xerox copy of lawyer notice dated. 19.04.2018 and 01.06.2018.
He also filed receiving endorsement relating to NEFT mandate for photocopy of banking pass book.
Case no. CC/82/2018
8.(d) OP did not adduce any evidence in support of this case.
8.(e) During trial OP as per prayer of the complainant was directed to produce some documents i.e instruction of RBI and eligible cheque dtd. 31.08.2018.
OP produced one document and one illegible cheque.
8.(f) Complainant filed BNA in support of his case.
OP also filed BNA in support of his case.
DECISION WITH REASONS:-
Issue No. 1:-
From the petition of complaint, evidence adduced by the Complainant and other materials on record, it is evident that the Complainant had purchased one LIC policy, being no. 424831482 in the name and style of “BIMA GOLD” from the OP LIC and he has been paying regular premium since purchase. It is also seen that the said LIC policy, is a money back policy and the OP has been receiving the Premium amount time to time from the Complainant. It is the contention of the Complainant that the OP has neglected and / or defaulted the money back amount of Rs. 25,000/- to the Complainant which was scheduled to be paid on 31.03.2018 and that is why the Complainant initialed this complaint for proper redressal.
Here, in our view the complainant is a consumer under the OP as per the definition provided u/s (2) (1) (d) of the C.P. Act, 1986 and simultaneously the OP, being the insurer, is the service provider as per the definition of “service” as provided u/s 2 (o) of the C.P. Act, 1986.
Issue No. 2:-
At the time of hearing, contesting OP did not raise any point alleging that the case is non maintainable. Moreover on perusal of pleadings, evidence and documents of both the parties, we do not find that the case is non maintainable.
Accordingly, we are of the opinion that the present case is maintainable it its present form.
Issue No. 3:-
Complainant alleged in the complaint that he was entitled to get an amount from the OP within 31 March 2018 but he did not get the same from the said OP,
Hence he served notice to the OP claiming compensation for the delayed payment. He mentioned in the petition of complaint that the cause of action of this case has at first arisen on 02.04.2018 and subsequently, thereafter.
Case no. CC/82/2018
On careful perusal of the pleadings , evidence and documents on record we find that cause of action of this case has arisen at first on 02.04.2018 when the complainant’s wife went to the office of OP for enquiry as to why complainant did not get the amount of Rs. 25,000/- within 31.03.2018.
Accordingly we are of the opinion that the complainant has cause of action to file the present the case.
Issue No. 4:-
During the hearing OP did not allege that the case is barred by limitation. Moreover on perusal of case record we find that complainant has filed this case on 03.07.2018.
Accordingly, we find that complainant filed this case within the period of 2 years from the date of first cause of action i.e 02.04.2018.
Accordingly, we are of the opinion that the present case is not barred by limitation.
Issued No. 5 :-
This point is taken up for consideration. Moreover on perusal of the pleadings of both the parties, we find that it is admitted position that complainant purchased one policy namely “ BIMA GOLD” vide no. 428821482 from the office of OP.
It is also admitted position that commencement of risk was started from 31.03.2006.
Date of commencement of policy was 25.03.2006.
Premium paying term was 20 years and date. of maturity is 25.03.2026.
It is also admitted position that in terms of the said policy complainant was entitled to Rs. 25,000/- within the 31.03.2018. It is also admitted position that complainant got the said amount by account payee cheque on 30.05.2018.
It is also admitted position that aforesaid payment of Rs. 25,000/- was delayed for 60days.
It is also admitted position that being policy holders of the aforesaid policy complainant is consumer under OP and OP is a service provider but it is the allegation of the complainant that there was no reason to delay in making aforesaid payment and due to delay of aforesaid payment complainant faced financial loss and harassment due to serious negligence on the part of OP. He failed to render proper service to the complainant. No explanation or reply was sent by the OP to the complainant.
It is the plea of the OP which was mentioned in the W/V that as per instruction of RBI all payment are being made through NEFT and there was NEFT entry in a
Case no. CC/82/2018
aforesaid policy as such SB due for the year 2018 could not made and the policy holder submitted NEFT particulars on 02.04.2018.
Cheque was issued in favor of the complainant on 31.03.2018 but it was not sent to the complainant due to mechanical defect and the said cheque was hold with a view to re-issue the cheque on convenient date.
On careful perusal of the pleading of the both the parties, evidence and BNA and document on record we find that OP filed a document issued by LIC dtd. 09.03.2018.
On careful scrutiny of the record we find that in spite of direction of this Commission OP failed to produce the guideline of RBI. So, the contention of the OP that particular for NEFT transaction as per guideline of RBI is required remains a story.
On perusal of cheque no.608470 we find that said cheque is almost illegible but name of the complaint is appeared in the cheque. Issue of date of cheque is not clear. OP claimed that they issued cheque on 31.03.2018 but due to some mechanical defect it was not handed over to the complainant.
But OP could not give sufficient explanation as to why after knowing defects of the cheque or illegible entry fresh cheque was not issued immediately thereafter or within 1 or 2 days. He could not issue the legible cheque on or after 31.03.2018. OP failed to give any explanation before this Commission as to why they did not issue fresh cheque on 31.03.2018 or immediately thereafter.
OP argued before this Commission that particular of NEFT was not available with the record for that reasons they could not pay the aforesaid amount Rs. 25,000/- to the complainant on 02.04.2018 but they failed to give any explanation as to why they after receiving of the NEFT particulars not issued the cheque in favor of the complainant immediately. From the aforesaid discussion it is clear before this Commission that OP could not give any satisfactory explanation as to why aforesaid payment was made on 30.05.2018 instead of within 31.03.2018.
Having regard to the aforesaid discussion it is clear before this Commission that OP has failed to made payment within 31.03.2018 in favour of the complainant and it is also clear before this Commission that OP has made payment of aforesaid amount of Rs. 25,000/- in favour of the complainant on 30.05.2018. It is also clear before this Commission that OP has made aforesaid payment after 60 days and OP failed to give satisfactory explanation regarding the delay of aforesaid payment which amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the OP and as a result complainant sustained to monetary loss as well as mental pain and agony, sufferings etc.
Case no. CC/82/2018
Having considered the entire matter we are of the view that aforesaid monetary loss, alongwith mental pain agony, sufferings, etc. of the complainant cannot be less than Rs.5, 000/-.
Due to aforesaid deficiency in service on the part of the OP complainant compelled to come before this Commission and the present litigation has arisen.
Accordingly, we are of the opinion that the complainant in entitled to get cost of Rs. 3,000/- for the present litigation.
This point is thus decided in favour of the complainant.
Issue No:-6 In view of the above discussion we are of the considered opinion that there is no necessity to award any other relief or reliefs to the Complainant in respect of this case.
All the points are disposed of. Complainant is entitled to compensation and cost as aforesaid.
Hence, it is,
Ordered,
That the present case vide No.CC/ 82/2018 be and the same is allowed on contest against OP with cost to Rs.3,000/-( three thousand only) to be paid by the OP in favour of the complainant within 30 days.
OP is further directed to pay Rs. 5,000/- (five thousand only) as compensation to the complainant within 30 days from this date, failing which aforesaid amount shall carry interest @ 12 % per annum from 08.10.2022 to till the date of actual payment in favour of the complainant.
Let free copy of this final order be supplied to the parties / their Ld. Advocates / agents forthwith as free of cost or send by ordinary post as per C.P.R-2005.
