State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Gujjar Singh Sandhu vs Lic Of India on 3 March, 2014
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
PUNJAB, DAKSHIN MARG, SECTOR 37-A, CHANDIGARH.
First Appeal No.91 of 2011
Date of institution : 19.01.2011
Date of decision : 03.03.2014
Gujjar Singh Sandhu son of Pritam Singh, resident of 399, Akash
Avenue, Fatehgarh Churian Road, Amritsar.
.......Appellant-Complainant
Versus
1. The Branch Manager, LIC of India, City Branch 19, KMDO-1,
Hindustan Building, Ist Floor, 4-C.R. Avenue, Kolkata 72.
2. Regional Manager, LIC of India, City Branch 19, KMDO-I,
Hindustan Building Ist Floor, 4-C.R. Avenue, Kolkata 72.
3. Divisional Manager/Authorized Officer, LIC of India, Ranjit
Avenue, near M.K. Hotel, Amritsar.
......Respondents- Opposite Parties
First Appeal against the order dated
19.11.2010 of the District Consumer
Disputes Redressal Forum, Amritsar.
Quorum:-
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Gurdev Singh, President.
Mrs. Surinder Pal Kaur, Member.
Present:-
For the appellant : Shri B.D. Sharma, Advocate. For the respondents : Shri O.P. Sharda, Advocate. JUSTICE GURDEV SINGH, PRESIDENT :
The appellant/complainant has preferred this appeal against the order dated 19.11.2010 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Amritsar (in short, "District Forum"), vide which the complaint filed by him under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short, "the Act") for directing the respondents/opposite First Appeal No.91 of 2011. 2 parties either to revive the insurance policy with all the benefits attached thereto or to repay the total amount paid so far, including the sum of Rs.47,529/-, along with interest at the rate of 18% per annum and to pay a compensation of Rs.20,000/-, was dismissed.
2. As per the allegations contained in the complaint, the complainant obtained policy bearing No.414669830 from opposite party No.1 and paid all the premiums through drafts bearing Nos.828178, 873217, 646990, 179460, 009388, 009389 and 378840 of the total value of Rs.47,529/-, which were revalidated, along with upto date interest as advised by Pardeep Kumar, agent of the opposite parties. That amount was received in the office of opposite party No.1 on 21.9.2005 at their cash counter. There is no reason to believe that these drafts had not been collected through clearing on or before 24.9.2005. Opposite party No.1 had clear four days for collection/clearance for the bank drafts. If there was any delay in depositing or sending the same to the payee's bank, the same is attributable to this opposite party. Though he had furnished the fresh correspondence address, mobile number and phone number to it, yet it never took the pain to contact him and advice about the fate of the drafts and the policy. He sent a number of letters dated 18.9.2005, 12.10.2007, 20.5.2008, 18.11.2008 and 28.4.2009 to the office of the opposite party but those were never replied. The drafts were never returned to him; which itself shows that the amounts were collected by the opposite party regarding the revival of the policy. Though the said letters were never replied by the opposite party, yet it wasted no time in giving reply to his notice dated First Appeal No.91 of 2011. 3 19.8.2009 sent by him through his counsel Shri Navneet Singh Sangotra, Advocate. He had invested the amount with the opposite party keeping in mind the security aspect of his life and the non- accounting of the drafts and non-revival of the policy amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party, for which he is entitled to the compensation of Rs.20,000/-.
3. The complaint was contested by opposite party No.1 by filing written reply before the District Forum. It admitted that the policy so mentioned in the complaint was obtained by the complainant and the drafts so mentioned in the complaint were sent to it. While denying the other allegations made in the complaint, it pleaded that the drafts were got prepared by the complainant in the month of March 2005 and were sent to it on 18.9.2005, with a delay of five and half months. The drafts were deposited as and when those were received but were dishonoured as outdated. The information to that effect was sent to the complainant through its agent but no payment was made towards the premiums. On account of the non-payment of those premiums, the policy lapsed. The same can be renewed only after submitting of the personal statement of health, medical report, the revival amount, as per quotation and the original policy itself. All the allegations contained in the complaint are false and fake. The complainant is not a 'consumer' as defined in Section 2(1)(d) of the Act. There are specific provisions in Insurance Act, 1938 for dealing with the disputes under the contract of insurance and, as such, the provisions of the Act cannot be invoked. The complaint is bad for misjoinder and non-joinder of the parties. The First Appeal No.91 of 2011. 4 complainant has wrongly and intentionally concealed the true and correct material facts from the District Forum. It prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.
4. Both the sides produced evidence in support of their respective averments before the District Forum, which after going through the same and hearing learned counsel on their behalf dismissed the complaint, vide aforesaid order.
5. We have heard learned counsel for both the sides and have carefully gone through the records of the case.
6. It was submitted by the learned counsel for the complainant that it was wrongly concluded by the District Forum that the invalid drafts were given by the complainant to the opposite party and that the premiums were not paid and that the complaint was barred by limitation. Those findings have been recorded by totally ignoring the evidence produced by the complainant that he had given the drafts well within time and he was never informed about the fate of those drafts. He kept on writing letters at regular intervals, which were proved on the record as Ex.C-5, Ex.C-6 and Ex.C-9 and even then, no information was supplied to him by the opposite party regarding encashing or non-encashing of the drafts. This was the deficiency in service committed by the opposite party, for which the complainant was entitled to compensation. In addition to that, the opposite party is liable to revive the policy as the premiums, by means of the drafts, were duly paid and no evidence has been produced by the opposite party for proving that those drafts were dishonoured by the bank. First Appeal No.91 of 2011. 5
7. On the other hand, it was submitted by the learned counsel for the opposite party that the drafts so given by the complainant had expired before the same could be sent to the payee's bank, as the date of validity was very short and accordingly those were dishonoured. The information about the dishonouring of the drafts was duly given to the complainant through his agent. The complainant was duly informed that the policy has lapsed and the period of limitation for filing the present complaint was to be computed from that date. The complaint was filed after the expiry of two years. Correct findings in favour of the opposite party were recorded by the District Forum and there is no ground for upsetting those well reasoned findings.
8. The complainant substantiated the allegations made in the complaint by means of his affidavit Ex.CW1/A. He deposed therein that the opposite party had collected the drafts in question on 21.9.2005 and the amount thereof could have been collected through clearing on or before 24.9.2005. That deposition stands corroborated by letter dated 18.9.2005, which has been proved by the opposite party itself as Ex.R-11 and the dates of validity are mentioned therein. The fact that this letter is coming from the possession of the opposite party shows that those drafts were duly received by it.
9. It is the specific case of the opposite parties that these drafts were outdated and were dishonoured on that ground. If it was so, why it had not communicated that fact to the complainant though he had been asking for the revival of the policy and the fate of the drafts First Appeal No.91 of 2011. 6 by writing letters and some of which were proved by him on the record as Ex.C-5, Ex.C-6 and Ex.C-9. The fact that those letters were actually sent to the opposite parties stands proved from the postal receipts Ex.C-4 and Ex.C-7. The presumption can well be drawn that these letters having been sent through registered post must have been received by the opposite party in due course of postal business. If the drafts had been dishonoured, why it kept silence and did not give reply to those letters. The fact that the drafts were actually received by the opposite party also stands proved from the documents, which have been proved on record by itself as Ex.R-16 to Ex.R-19. Strangely enough, in some of the documents it is describing those documents as drafts and in some documents as cheques. It appears that in order to cover its own lapses, it failed to give reply to the letters repeatedly written by the complainant to know the fate of his policy and the drafts. By ignoring all that evidence, the District Forum wrongly recorded the findings against the complainant. The cause of action was to accrue to the complainant only when he had been informed by the opposite party about the non-revival of the policy or the dishonoring of the drafts. He proved on record the letter dated 11.9.2009, received by him from the side of the opposite party in reply to his letter dated 19.8.2009. The opposite party has not proved on record any letter, which was written on the same subject to the complainant before 11.9.2009. Thus, the period of limitation was to be computed from that date. Once the drafts had been sent in time to the opposite party, in all fairness, in case of dishonouring thereof, it was required First Appeal No.91 of 2011. 7 to inform the complainant immediately and was to ask him to send the fresh drafts and the other documents for the revival of the policy. It failed to do so and the same amounts to deficiency in service on its part.
10. In the result, this appeal is allowed, the order passed by the District Forum is set aside and opposite party No.1 is directed to revive the policy after the receipt of the amounts of the premiums, which were payable, for which it shall inform the complainant regarding the amount of those premiums within one month of the receipt of the copy of this order and the complainant shall deposit that amount, along with the other requisite documents, within one month of the receipt of that information. The opposite party is directed to pay a compensation of Rs.20,000/- for the deficiency in service on its part.
11. The arguments in this case were heard on 20.2.2014 and the order was reserved. Now, the order be communicated to the parties.
12. The appeal could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of court cases.
(JUSTICE GURDEV SINGH)
PRESIDENT
(MRS. SURINDER PAL KAUR)
March 03, 2014 MEMBER
Bansal
First Appeal No.91 of 2011. 8