State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Lic Of India vs Shri Praveen Kumar on 20 September, 2012
BEFORE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM SOLAN, H
H.P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SHIMLA.
First Appeal No.320/2011
Date
of Decision: 20.09.2012
Life Insurance Corporation of India,
Through its Divisional Manager,
Divisional Office, Block No.14-15,
SDA Complex, Kasumpti, Shimla,
H.P.
..
Appellant
Versus
Shri Praveen Kumar son of Shri
Jiwan Sharma,
R/o Village and Post Office
Mahakali,
Tehsil Baijnath, District Kangra,
H.P.
Respondent
Coram
Honble Mr. Justice (Retd.) Surjit Singh, President
Honble Mr. Chander Shekhar Sharma, Member
Honble Mrs. Prem Chauhan, Member
Whether
approved for reporting?[1]Yes.
For the
Appellant: Mr. G.D. Sharma, Advocate
For the
Respondent: Mr.
Adarsh K. Vashista, Advocate
O R D E R:
Justice (Retd.) Surjit Singh, President (Oral) Appellant is aggrieved by the order dated 28.07.2011, of learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kangra, Camp at Palampur, whereby a complaint, under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, filed against it by respondent Parveen Kumar Sharma, has been allowed and it (the appellant) has been ordered to pay a sum of `50,000/-, with interest at the rate of 10% per annum from the date of receipt of the aforesaid amount of money, i.e. 19.01.2006, till the date of actual payment and has further been ordered to pay `20,000/- as compensation and `5,000/- as litigation expenses.
2. Respondent, in his complaint, under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, alleged that on 19.01.2006, he deposited a sum of `50,000/- with the appellant for investment in Jeevan Plus policy against receipt, Annexure-A. He alleged that the policy was to mature after three years. On maturity, he was to be paid some higher amount of money.
It was alleged that the appellant never issued Jeevan Plus policy, despite reminder dated 29.04.2006 and some other reminders issued in the year, 2009, after the date of maturity. A legal notice was also served, which was not responded to, by the appellant. With these allegations, respondent approached learned District Forum for passing an order, directing the appellant to refund the amount of `50,000/-, with all benefits of Jeevan Plus policy and also to pay on the aggregate amount of money interest at the bank rate, besides seeking damages and litigation expenses.
3. Appellant contested the complaint and pleaded that against the amount of `50,000/- deposited against receipt, Annexure-A, a Future Plus policy was issued on 25.01.2006 and that Future Plus policy had been surrendered by the respondent on 7th November, 2006 and surrender value worked out at `58,787/-. It was alleged that out of the aforesaid surrender value, a sum of `58,000/- was invested in another policy, known as Market Plus and the rest of the money was paid to the respondent.
4. Respondent did not file any rejoinder, but that should not make any difference, because in the complaint itself, the respondent pleaded that Future Plus policy had been issued to him on 25.01.2006 for another amount of `50,000/-, which he paid in cash to the agent of the appellant.
5. Parties adduced evidence.
Several documents were produced by the respondent. Appellant also produced various documents including proposal forms and Future Plus policy as also Market Plus policy and a document showing that the respondent had surrendered Future Plus policy and out of the proceeds of surrender value, a sum of `58,000/- had been invested in another policy, known as Market Plus.
6. Learned District Forum, vide impugned order, concluded that the appellant had not accounted for the money received by it for investment in Jeevan Plus policy nor had it issued the policy against the money received by it and consequently, passed the impugned order.
7. We have gone through the record and heard learned counsel for the parties.
8. Respondent is an educated man. It is his own case that he has been investing money with the appellant in his own name as also in the names of his wife, mother and father. One of the documents produced by him, i.e. Annexure-G shows that he had invested money in certain policies of the appellant, even prior to January, 2006 and also thereafter in the year, 2006 itself and years 2007 and 2008. The amount of `50,000/- which is the subject matter of the present lis, was paid by the respondent against receipt, Annexure-A. The fact that he had been investing money prior to investment, in question, and subsequent thereto as also the fact he is possessed of receipt of `50,000/-, which he deposited for Jeevan Plus policy, shows that he is supposed to be knowing and understanding the significance of obtaining receipt, whenever money is invested. It is in this background that the material on record, including affidavit of respondent, is required to be appraised.
9. Money for investment in jeevan Plus policy was deposited on 19th January, 2006. Receipt is Annexure-A. Proposal form was also filled in, which is Annexure OP-1. However, in this form, words Jeevan Plus were written in a different pen and ink, which were later-on scored out. Who wrote these words, in a different pen, different ink and also in different hand, is not clear?
10. Future Plus policy, which according to the appellant was issued against the money received from the respondent against receipt, Annexure-A, is Annexure OP-2. This policy is dated 25.01.2006. Policy makes reference to the number of proposal form, which had been filled in and submitted by the respondent. The number is 23406. This number is the same as mentioned in proposal form Annexure OP-1, referred to hereinabove. Matching of the proposal number written in the policy Annexure OP-2, with the number of proposal form Annexure OP-1, which the respondent submitted for purchase of Jeevan Plus policy, lends a great deal of strength to the appellants plea that money deposited by the respondent against receipt, Annexure-A was invested in Future Plus scheme and policy Annexure OP-2, was issued.
11. Respondent does not deny the issuance of policy, Annexure OP-2 in his favour. However, his plea, as per averments made in the complaint as also declaration in the affidavit is that for this policy, he had paid the money separately, in cash, to an agent of the appellant. But the respondent has not produced any receipt having been issued in his favour, either by the appellant, or the agent, to whom the cash was, allegedly paid.
12. Respondent relies upon a writing dated 29.04.2006, Annexure-B, which he, allegedly addressed to the appellant complaining that Jeevan Plus policy had not been issued for which an amount of `50,000/- had been deposited against receipt dated 19.01.2006, Annexure-A. Though the letter purports to be dated 29.04.2006, the fact is that the date is overwritten which makes it highly doubtful if the letter was in-fact written on that date and dispatched to the appellant. Moreover, there is nothing on record showing if this letter was delivered personally at the office of the appellant, or it was sent by post. Appellant denies receipt of this letter. What makes this letter further doubtful is the fact that other letters, allegedly written by the respondent to the appellant bear different dates of year, 2009. This long silence of three years speaks volumes of the genuineness of respondents plea.
13. In view of the above stated position, we accept the appeal, set aside the impugned order passed by learned District Forum and dismiss the complaint filed by respondent with costs, quantified at `2,000/-.
14. One copy of this order be sent to each of the parties, free of cost, as per Rules.
(Justice Surjit Singh) President (Chander Shekhar Sharma) Member (Prem Chauhan) Member September 20, 2012 *dinesh* [1] Whether Reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the order?