D. John Raj and Another Vs. Senior Divisional Manager, L and Hpf, Life Insurance Corporation of India and Another - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citationsooperkanoon.com/1145208
CourtNational Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
Decided OnMay-29-2014
Case NumberRevision Petition No. 230 of 2012
JudgeK.S. CHAUDHARI, PRESIDING MEMBER & THE HONOURABLE DR. B.C. GUPTA, MEMBER
AppellantD. John Raj and Another
RespondentSenior Divisional Manager, L and Hpf, Life Insurance Corporation of India and Another
Excerpt:
consumer protection act, 1986 - section 21(b) -dr. b.c. gupta, member this revision petition has been filed under section 21(b) of the consumer protection act, 1986 against the impugned order dated 30.06.2011, passed by the tamil nadu state consumer disputes redressal commission, chennai (for short the state commission) in first appeal no. 334 of 2007, œd. john raj and ors. vs. senior divisional manager, lic and ors.?, vide which, while dismissing appeal, the order dated 23.4.2007, passed by the district consumer disputes redressal forum, chennai (south) in o.p. no. 319 of 2005, dismissing the consumer complaint in question, was upheld. 2. briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the petitioners/complainant filed the consumer complaint in question, saying that they had obtained insurance policies from the lic, policy no. 61928731 in the name of first complainant for a sum of rs. 25,000/- w.e.f. 28.12.1982 and policy no. 61923778 in the name of second complainant for a sum of rs.50,000/- w.e.f. 20.03.1982 and they were regularly paying premium of rs.61.30 and rs.171.00 for these policies, through consolidated cheque for rs.232.30. the petitioner no.2/complainant no.2 availed a housing loan of rs.75,000/- from the opposite party. the opposite party claimed rs.10,605/- for non-payment of interest for the period from december, 2000 to august, 2001, although they had paid the interest instalments regularly. however, the complainant no.2 repaid the loan of rs.75,000/- and obtained a stamped receipt for rs.75,000/-. since the opposite party deliberately withheld the documents, the complainant no.2 filed complaint before the district forum as o.p. no.149 of 2004. the opposite party got the policy of complainant no.2 surrendered and appropriated the alleged dues for the period december, 2000 to august, 2001 and so, the policy was prematurely liquidated on 11.11.2003 and intimation sent to the complainant. the complainants have alleged that they continued to make payment of consolidated cheque of rs.232.30 as premium for both policies and they have annexed details of payment of these cheques from october, 2003 to may, 2004. however, some of these cheques were not accounted for, by the opposite parties and some of them were withheld without any action. the complainants have demanded that the opposite parties should be asked to intimate the fate of cheque nos. 965683 and 965685 for rs.232.30 each for the months of january, 2004 and february, 2004. the opposite parties should also be directed to accept the cheques towards premium for policy no. 61928731 of complainant no.1 to the extent possible as per practice in the lic. they should also be directed to accept the premium for policy no. 61923778 of complainant no.2 pending the disposal of o.p. no. 149/04 filed in the district forum by complainant no.2. the complainants also demanded compensation of rs.50,000/- towards mental agony etc., and rs. 10,000/- as litigation cost. 3. in their written reply to the complaint before the district forum, the opposite party, lic stated that the complainants were not paying the premium regularly and had also not paid the instalments for the repayment of the housing loan given to them. a sum of rs.10,605/- had accumulated due to delayed/irregular payment of housing loan amount for the period december, 2000 to august, 2001. the opposite party admitted that the complainants had paid a sum of rs.75,000/- towards housing loan, but they had failed to clear the dues under the housing loan account. as per the terms of the mortgaged deed executed by the second complainant, the opposite parties surrendered the policy of second complainant and adjusted rs.10,605/- towards the loan amount and balance amount was returned to complainant no.2 and this issue was the subject matter of the consumer complaint no.149/04 filed by complainant no.2 before the district forum. the opposite parties have further given details about the adjustment of cheques of rs.232.30, sent by the complainants from time to time, as per the details given in the complaint. the opposite parties have taken the stand that they did not accept the premium for policy in favour of complainant no.2 as the said policy stood surrendered. however, they had adjusted the amounts paid towards premium for the other policy in favour of the complainant no.1. 4. the district forum after taking into account the evidence produced before them, dismissed the complaint vide order dated 23.4.2007, saying that there was no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. the district forum held that once the policy in favour of second complainant was surrendered, the complainant should not have sent a consolidated cheque for premium for both policies. however, the opposite parties had rightly refused to accept the cheques and requested the complainants to send correct cheques. the district forum also observed that complaint no. o.p. 149/04 filed by complainant no.2 was dismissed by the district forum on 29.03.2006 and a copy of the order was available in their record. on appeal, the state commission, vide impugned order dated 30.6.2011 upheld the order passed by the district forum on 23.4.2007. it is against this order that the present petition has been made. 5. the parties in the case were heard at admission stage on 12.11.2013. it was observed that the policy in favour of the complainant no.1 had matured on 28.12.2007 and its maturity value was rs.23,343/-. it was not clear whether the said amount had been paid to the complainant or not? the petition was thereafter, admitted and fixed for final hearing on 21.5.2014. 6. at the time of final hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioner stated that the opposite parties could not have surrendered the policies on their own unilaterally, without giving any intimation to the complainants. moreover, in their written reply before the district forum, the opposite parties had wrongly stated that the policy in favour of the first complainant was surrendered and adjusted towards the loan amount and hence, there was no question of accepting cheques towards payment of premium for the said policy. the said policy had however, matured on 28.12.2007, but the maturity value had still not been paid to them. the opposite parties had therefore committed deficiency in service, for which there are liable to pay adequate compensation to the complainants. 7. in reply, the learned counsel for the respondents/opposite parties admitted that the policy in favour of complainant no.1 had matured on 28.12.2007 and its maturity value was rs.23,343/-. the opposite parties were willing to pay this amount to the complainants with interest. the learned counsel further stated that even after the surrender of the policy in favour of complainant no.2, the complainants continued to send consolidated premium cheques for both the policies and hence, the opposite parties refused to accept the same. in fact, they had given complete details in their written statement about the adjustment of the cheques, sent from time to time. out of the amount of rs.232.30, sent through one single cheque, they had adjusted the premium for the policy in favour of complainant no.1 and retained the balance money for future adjustments. at certain times, they had even returned cheque of rs.232.30, saying that premium under a surrendered policy could not be accepted. a letter dated 26.4.2005 addressed to complainant no.2 has been placed on record. they had also sent a letter on 22.11.2003, saying that after adjusting dues towards housing loan, they had prepared a cheque of rs.69,971/- towards refund, which could be paid to complainant no.2 on bringing proof of identity. the learned counsel stated that consumer fora below had rightly dismissed the consumer complaint in question. 8. we have examined the entire material on record and given a thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced before us. the admitted facts are that the complainants had taken two different policies from the lic, one amounting to rs.25,000/- and other amounting to rs.50,000/-, for which the monthly premium of rs.61.30 and rs.171.00, total rs. 232.20 was being paid through one consolidated cheque. it is also admitted that complainant no.2 had raised a housing loan of rs.75,000/- from the opposite party. the opposite parties have taken the stand that because of default/irregular payment of the instalments of housing loan, they got the policy in favour of the complainant no.2 surrendered. it is made out from record that consumer complaint no.149/04 was filed by complainant no.2 before the district forum, but as stated in the order dated 23.4.2007 of the district forum, the said complaint was dismissed on 29.3.2006 and a copy of the said order was available in the record of the district forum. it is clear, therefore, that the surrender of the policy taken by complainant no.2, was upheld by the district forum. 9. in so far as policy no. 61928731 in favour of complainant no.1 is concerned, it is also admitted by both the parties that the said policy matured on 28.12.2007, but its maturity value had still not been paid. in a letter dated 24.12.2010, filed before the state commission, the opposite party stated that the premium for the said policy had been paid upto june, 2005, but it remained unpaid from july, 2005 to december, 2007. the policy matured on 28.12.2007 and the maturity value for the policy as on 28.12.2007 was rs.23,343/-. the learned counsel for respondents stated during arguments that they were prepared to pay the maturity value to the complainants along with interest. 10. in so far as the payment of cheques of rs.232.30 from time to time is concerned, the opposite party have explained in their reply about the adjustment of the amount received by them. at certain times, they even returned the cheque, saying that the premium for surrendered policy could not be accepted. looking at the facts of the case, we do not find any negligence on the part of the opposite party in dealing with the premium cheques sent by the complainants from time to time. 11. based on the discussion above, we do not find any legal infirmity, irregularity or jurisdictional error in the orders passed by the state commission and the district forum and the same are confirmed. however, the opposite parties are directed to pay the maturity amount of rs.23,343/- to complainant no.1, along with interest @ 12% from the date of maturity i.e. 28.12.2007 as requested by complainant no.1 in his letter dated 02.08.2011, a copy of which is on record. the revision petition in question stands disposed of with this direction. there shall be no order as to costs.
Judgment:

Dr. B.C. Gupta, Member

This revision petition has been filed under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the impugned order dated 30.06.2011, passed by the Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chennai (for short the State Commission) in First Appeal No. 334 of 2007, œD. John Raj and Ors. Vs. Senior Divisional Manager, LIC and Ors.?, vide which, while dismissing appeal, the order dated 23.4.2007, passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Chennai (South) in O.P. NO. 319 of 2005, dismissing the consumer complaint in question, was upheld.

2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the petitioners/complainant filed the consumer complaint in question, saying that they had obtained insurance policies from the LIC, Policy No. 61928731 in the name of first complainant for a sum of Rs. 25,000/- w.e.f. 28.12.1982 and policy No. 61923778 in the name of second complainant for a sum of Rs.50,000/- w.e.f. 20.03.1982 and they were regularly paying premium of Rs.61.30 and Rs.171.00 for these policies, through consolidated cheque for Rs.232.30. The petitioner No.2/complainant No.2 availed a housing loan of Rs.75,000/- from the opposite party. The opposite party claimed Rs.10,605/- for non-payment of interest for the period from December, 2000 to August, 2001, although they had paid the interest instalments regularly. However, the complainant No.2 repaid the loan of Rs.75,000/- and obtained a stamped receipt for Rs.75,000/-. Since the opposite party deliberately withheld the documents, the complainant No.2 filed complaint before the District Forum as O.P. No.149 of 2004. The opposite party got the policy of complainant No.2 surrendered and appropriated the alleged dues for the period December, 2000 to August, 2001 and so, the policy was prematurely liquidated on 11.11.2003 and intimation sent to the complainant. The complainants have alleged that they continued to make payment of consolidated cheque of Rs.232.30 as premium for both policies and they have annexed details of payment of these cheques from October, 2003 to May, 2004. However, some of these cheques were not accounted for, by the opposite parties and some of them were withheld without any action. The complainants have demanded that the opposite parties should be asked to intimate the fate of cheque nos. 965683 and 965685 for Rs.232.30 each for the months of January, 2004 and February, 2004. The opposite parties should also be directed to accept the cheques towards premium for policy No. 61928731 of complainant No.1 to the extent possible as per practice in the LIC. They should also be directed to accept the premium for policy No. 61923778 of complainant No.2 pending the disposal of O.P. No. 149/04 filed in the District Forum by complainant No.2. The complainants also demanded compensation of Rs.50,000/- towards mental agony etc., and Rs. 10,000/- as litigation cost.

3. In their written reply to the complaint before the District Forum, the opposite party, LIC stated that the complainants were not paying the premium regularly and had also not paid the instalments for the repayment of the housing loan given to them. A sum of Rs.10,605/- had accumulated due to delayed/irregular payment of housing loan amount for the period December, 2000 to August, 2001. The opposite party admitted that the complainants had paid a sum of Rs.75,000/- towards housing loan, but they had failed to clear the dues under the housing loan account. As per the terms of the mortgaged deed executed by the second complainant, the opposite parties surrendered the policy of second complainant and adjusted Rs.10,605/- towards the loan amount and balance amount was returned to complainant No.2 and this issue was the subject matter of the consumer complaint No.149/04 filed by complainant No.2 before the District Forum. The opposite parties have further given details about the adjustment of cheques of Rs.232.30, sent by the complainants from time to time, as per the details given in the complaint. The opposite parties have taken the stand that they did not accept the premium for policy in favour of complainant No.2 as the said policy stood surrendered. However, they had adjusted the amounts paid towards premium for the other policy in favour of the complainant No.1.

4. The District Forum after taking into account the evidence produced before them, dismissed the complaint vide order dated 23.4.2007, saying that there was no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. The District Forum held that once the policy in favour of second complainant was surrendered, the complainant should not have sent a consolidated cheque for premium for both policies. However, the opposite parties had rightly refused to accept the cheques and requested the complainants to send correct cheques. The District Forum also observed that complaint No. O.P. 149/04 filed by complainant No.2 was dismissed by the District Forum on 29.03.2006 and a copy of the order was available in their record. On appeal, the State Commission, vide impugned order dated 30.6.2011 upheld the order passed by the District Forum on 23.4.2007. It is against this order that the present petition has been made.

5. The parties in the case were heard at admission stage on 12.11.2013. It was observed that the policy in favour of the complainant No.1 had matured on 28.12.2007 and its maturity value was Rs.23,343/-. It was not clear whether the said amount had been paid to the complainant or not? The petition was thereafter, admitted and fixed for final hearing on 21.5.2014.

6. At the time of final hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioner stated that the opposite parties could not have surrendered the policies on their own unilaterally, without giving any intimation to the complainants. Moreover, in their written reply before the District Forum, the opposite parties had wrongly stated that the policy in favour of the first complainant was surrendered and adjusted towards the loan amount and hence, there was no question of accepting cheques towards payment of premium for the said policy. The said policy had however, matured on 28.12.2007, but the maturity value had still not been paid to them. The opposite parties had therefore committed deficiency in service, for which there are liable to pay adequate compensation to the complainants.

7. In reply, the learned counsel for the respondents/opposite parties admitted that the policy in favour of complainant No.1 had matured on 28.12.2007 and its maturity value was Rs.23,343/-. The opposite parties were willing to pay this amount to the complainants with interest. The learned counsel further stated that even after the surrender of the policy in favour of complainant No.2, the complainants continued to send consolidated premium cheques for both the policies and hence, the opposite parties refused to accept the same. In fact, they had given complete details in their written statement about the adjustment of the cheques, sent from time to time. Out of the amount of Rs.232.30, sent through one single cheque, they had adjusted the premium for the policy in favour of complainant No.1 and retained the balance money for future adjustments. At certain times, they had even returned cheque of Rs.232.30, saying that premium under a surrendered policy could not be accepted. A letter dated 26.4.2005 addressed to complainant No.2 has been placed on record. They had also sent a letter on 22.11.2003, saying that after adjusting dues towards housing loan, they had prepared a cheque of Rs.69,971/- towards refund, which could be paid to complainant No.2 on bringing proof of identity. The learned counsel stated that consumer fora below had rightly dismissed the consumer complaint in question.

8. We have examined the entire material on record and given a thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced before us. The admitted facts are that the complainants had taken two different policies from the LIC, one amounting to Rs.25,000/- and other amounting to Rs.50,000/-, for which the monthly premium of Rs.61.30 and Rs.171.00, total Rs. 232.20 was being paid through one consolidated cheque. It is also admitted that complainant No.2 had raised a housing loan of Rs.75,000/- from the opposite party. The opposite parties have taken the stand that because of default/irregular payment of the instalments of housing loan, they got the policy in favour of the complainant No.2 surrendered. It is made out from record that consumer complaint No.149/04 was filed by complainant No.2 before the District Forum, but as stated in the order dated 23.4.2007 of the District Forum, the said complaint was dismissed on 29.3.2006 and a copy of the said order was available in the record of the District Forum. It is clear, therefore, that the surrender of the policy taken by complainant No.2, was upheld by the District Forum.

9. In so far as policy No. 61928731 in favour of complainant No.1 is concerned, it is also admitted by both the parties that the said policy matured on 28.12.2007, but its maturity value had still not been paid. In a letter dated 24.12.2010, filed before the State Commission, the opposite party stated that the premium for the said policy had been paid upto June, 2005, but it remained unpaid from July, 2005 to December, 2007. The policy matured on 28.12.2007 and the maturity value for the policy as on 28.12.2007 was Rs.23,343/-. The learned counsel for respondents stated during arguments that they were prepared to pay the maturity value to the complainants along with interest.

10. In so far as the payment of cheques of Rs.232.30 from time to time is concerned, the opposite party have explained in their reply about the adjustment of the amount received by them. At certain times, they even returned the cheque, saying that the premium for surrendered policy could not be accepted. Looking at the facts of the case, we do not find any negligence on the part of the opposite party in dealing with the premium cheques sent by the complainants from time to time.

11. Based on the discussion above, we do not find any legal infirmity, irregularity or jurisdictional error in the orders passed by the State Commission and the District Forum and the same are confirmed. However, the opposite parties are directed to pay the maturity amount of Rs.23,343/- to complainant No.1, along with interest @ 12% from the date of maturity i.e. 28.12.2007 as requested by complainant No.1 in his letter dated 02.08.2011, a copy of which is on record. The revision petition in question stands disposed of with this direction. There shall be no order as to costs.