State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
The Divisional Manager, Lic vs Ramrao Narayanrao Ugale on 8 May, 2014
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, MAHARASHTRA, CIRCUIT BENCH AT NAGPUR STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, MAHARASHTRA, CIRCUIT BENCH AT NAGPUR 5th Floor, Administrative Building No. 1 Civil Lines, Nagpur-440 001 First Appeal No. A/03/1526 (Arisen out of Order Dated 25/08/2003 in Case No. CC/99/299 of District Amravati) The Divisional Manager, Life Insurance Corporation of India National Insurance Building Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel Road Nagpur-440001 ...........Appellant(s) Versus Ramrao Narayanrao Ugale R/o. 33, Shri Vikas Colony Near Vivekanand Colony Amravati ...........Respondent(s) BEFORE: Hon'ble Mr. B.A.Shaikh, Presiding Member Hon'ble Mrs. Jayshree Yengal, Member PRESENT: Adv. Mr Kothari ......for the Appellant In person ......for the Respondent ORDER
(Passed on 08.05.2014) Per Mr B A Shaikh, Honble Presiding Member
1. This appeal is preferred by the original Opposite Party (for short O.P.) against the order dtd.25.08.2003 passed in consumer complaint bearing No.CC/99/299 by District Consumer Forum, Amravati by which the complaint has been partly allowed.
2. The case of the complainant as set out in the original complaint in brief is that he had taken policy for sum of Rs.10,000/- for the period of 24 years from 10.11.1968 to 10.11.1992 from the O.P. on 10.01.1968.
The yearly premium was of Rs.470.60.
The said policy was assigned to General Provident Fund (for short GPF) of the complainant. The amount of that policy was to be deposited with the Accountant General, Maharashtra State after the date of maturity i.e. after the date 10.11.1992. However, after the date of maturity, it was not deposited with Accountant General, Nagpur though the complainant made several requests to the O.P. The complainant vide letter dtd.31.03.1993 requested the O.P. to deposit the same in his GPF account, but of no use. Then on 09.10.1995 the complainant again wrote letter to the O.P. The O.P. sent claim voucher of Rs.13,380/- to the complainant but it was not accepted by the complainant as he wanted maturity value of Rs.22,000/- on the basis of that policy including the bonus. The complainant also claimed penal interest @ 18% p.a. over the aforesaid amount. The complainant wrote several letters to the O.P. as specified in the complaint from time to time. Lastly the complainant accepted voucher of Rs.20,053/- from the O.P. under protest. The O.P. then agreed to pay interest @ 9% p.a., but the complainant claimed interest @ 18% p.a. Therefore, the complainant filed the complaint and claimed compound penal interest @ 18% p.a. over maturity amount of Rs.20,053/- from the date of maturity i.e. from 10.11.1992 to its realization, Rs.5,000/- towards expenses and Rs.10,000/- as compensation towards harassment.
3. The said complaint was resisted by the O.P. Insurance Company by filing Written Version. It admitted that it had issued a policy to the complainant and it was to be matured on 10.11.1992 and sum assured was Rs.10,000/- and it was assigned to the GPF of the complainant and after maturity the said amount was to be deposited with Accountant General of Nagpur. It submitted that the complainant irregularly paid premium and therefore the policy was under paid up condition and it was accordingly informed by it to the complainant and the Accountant General on 20.02.1996. The complainant was directed to submit the policy document and Discharge Form duly filled in for Rs.13,380/-. However, he did not accept the same. The O.P. also showed willingness to pay Rs.11,119/- towards penal interest @ 9% p.a. but he did not agree to receive the same and claimed compound interest @ 18% p.a. The O.P. is not liable to pay the penal interest at the said rate. The amount of maturity has been transferred to the GPF account of the complainant as per terms & conditions. Therefore, it is submitted by the O.P. that the complaint is liable to be dismissed. In additional statement it is stated by the O.P. that the complainant had sent premium of the policy on incorrect address and due to that reason also delay was occurred in settlement of his claim. The policy was renewed thrice due to irregular payment of premium by him. The servicing branch of the O.P. had no information of the premium paid by the complainant and hence the matter was sent to the Chief Office of O.P. There was no information with the O.P. about the details of premium from Nov. 1987 to Nov.1991 and delay was occurred for payment of maturity amount due to that reason. Hence, on this ground also, it is submitted by the O.P. the complaint may be dismissed.
4. The Forum below after hearing advocates of both parties and considering the evidence brought on record came to the conclusion that the several requests were made by the complainant to the O.P. after the date of maturity of the policy, no matured amount was paid and lastly the complainant under protest received Rs.20,013/- on 05.02.1999. The Forum also observed that on 12.03.1999 the O.P. sent DD of Rs.11,199/- towards penal interest @ 9% p.a. to the complainant but he did not receive the same and claimed compound penal interest @ 18% p.a. The Forum also observed that though the complainant contacted O.P. from time to time, the O.P. did not ask the complainant to make any compliance. The Forum also observed that the policy was renewed after payment of premium, interest & penalty and therefore, the O.P. cannot take defence for delay in payment of maturity amount. The Forum, therefore, came to the conclusion that there is deficiency in service provided by the O.P. to the complainant. Thus, the Forum directed the O.P. under impugned order to pay to the complainant penal interest @ 12% p.a. over an amount of Rs.22,000/- from 31.03.1993 till the date of impugned order i.e. till 25.08.2003 and also to pay him Rs.500/- towards cost of complaint and Rs.1,500/- as compensation towards mental and physical harassment. It is also directed under impugned order that if said cost of complaint and compensation is not paid within 45 days from the date of receipt of that order, both the said amounts shall also carry interest @ 9% p.a. till their realization.
5. Feeling aggrieved by the said order, the original O.P. has preferred this appeal. The O.P. and the original complainant are hereinafter referred to as the appellant and respondent respectively. Both the parties filed Written Notes of Arguments in appeal. We have heard learned advocate of the appellant and the respondent in person and perused the documents filed by them.
6. The learned advocate of the appellant submitted in brief that the delay was occurred in payment of maturity amount because the respondent did not bring the original policy document with discharge form and the payment of Rs.20,013/- was made by the appellant to the respondent on 28.01.1999. He also submitted that the interest was applied @ 9% p.a. for the delay from 10.11.1992 to 28.01.1999. He further submitted that the premium was also sent to wrong address and the policy was also lapsed thrice, which also caused the delay. Thus, according to him these material facts were not considered by the Forum below and hence, the impugned order is illegal and it may be set aside.
7. On the other hand, the respondent supported the impugned order and submitted that the appeal may be dismissed.
8. It is clear from the evidence brought on record that though the O.P. was under obligation to transfer the amount of maturity of the policy as soon as the policy was matured on 10.11.1992 and though the respondent herein made several requests in writing to the appellant to pay the said maturity amount, the appellant did not pay the said maturity amount till 05.02.1999. We find that the reasons given by the appellant for the said delay are not tenable in the law and cannot be accepted so as to excuse appellant from payment of penal interest @ 12 % p.a. for the said delay.
Even the appellant accepted to pay penal interest @ 9% p.a. over the maturity amount, which was rightly not accepted by the respondent herein. We hold that the Forum below under the facts & circumstances of the case as discussed in the impugned order has rightly held that the complaint / respondent herein is entitled to interest @ 12% p.a. from the date 31.03.1993 when the respondent herein had written letter to the appellant to transfer maturity amount to his GPF account, till the date of that final order i.e. till 25.08.2003. We also hold that the Forum below has properly awarded cost of Rs.500/- and compensation of Rs.1,500/- with application of the interest from the date after expiry of the period of 45 days after receipt of copy of that order. In our view, the impugned order is legal, correct & proper and needs no interference.
Hence, the appeal deserves to be dismissed.
ORDER i. The appeal is dismissed.
ii. No order as to cost in appeal.
iii. Copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of cost.
[ B. A. SHAIKH] PRESIDING MEMBER [ SMT.JAYSHREE YENGAL] MEMBER sj