State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Kuldeep Kiran S/O Sh. Avinash Chander, vs 1. L.I.C. Of India, Through Its Chairman on 30 March, 2012
1
FIRST APPEAL NO. 746 OF 2007
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PUNJAB,
SECTOR 37-A, DAKSHIN MARG, CHANDIGARH
First Appeal No. 746 of 2007
Date of institution: 29.05.2007
Date of Decision : 30.03.2012
Kuldeep Kiran S/o Sh. Avinash Chander, R/o H.No.479, Street Peer Guraya,
Salem Shah Road, Fazilka, Distt. Ferozepur.
....Appellant/complainant
Versus
1. L.I.C. of India, through its Chairman, Yagakshema, Jeevan Beema Marg,
Post. Box No. 19953, Mumbai- 400 021.
2. L.I.C. of India, through its Zonal Manager, Jeevan Bharti, Tower-II, 124,
Cannaught Circus, Post Box No.630, New Delhi- 110 001.
3. L.I.C. of India, through its Divisional Manager, Divisional Office, Amritsar.
4. L.I.C. of India, through its Branch Manager, Branch Office Fazilka, Distt.
Ferozepur.
5. L.I.C. of India, through its Divisional Manager, Divisional Officer,
Jalandhar, Model Town Road, Jalandhar.
6. Vinod Sharma, Administrative Officer, L.I.C of India, Branch Officer,
Fazilka, Teh. Fazilka Distt. Ferozepur.
...Respondents/OPs.
First Appeal against the order dated
09.03.2007 of the District Consumer
Disputes Redressal Forum, Ferozepur.
Before:-
Shri Jagroop Singh Mahal, Presiding Judicial Member.
Shri B.S.Sekhon, Member.
Present:-
For the appellant : Sh. Dinesh Kumar, Advocate for
Sh. P.K.Kataria, Advocate
For respondent : Sh. Rajneesh Malhotra, Advocate
2
FIRST APPEAL NO. 746 OF 2007
JAGROOP SINGH MAHAL, PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER:
This is complainant's appeal under section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) against the order dated 09.03.2007 passed by the Learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ferozepur (hereinafter referred to as the District Forum) vide which the complaint was dismissed.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the complainant had purchased the insurance policy from Ambala City branch of LIC. The mode of payment of premium was half yearly. The complainant got the policy transferred to Fazilka branch i.e. OP no.4, after paying the premium of June,2005. The premium was, however, not credited to his account. The complainant then, met Vinod Sharma/OP no.6 in the office of the OP no.4 and showed him the original receipt dated 05.07.2005 regarding the payment of Rs.3970 as premium deposited in Jalandhar Unit-I Branch of the LIC (OP no.5), but he did not agree and asked the complainant to obtain the status report from the said branch. The complainant then visited the office of the OP no.5, obtained the status report and produced it before Vinod Sharma/ OP no.6, but inspite of that he refused to accept the same and told him that the higher authorities of LIC would look into the matter and told him that the policy would lapse for non payment of premium for the period ending June,2005. According to the complainant the behavior of Vinod Sharma, OP no.6 was insulting and volcanic. The complainant then informed the branch Manager of OP no.4 and moved a representation, but to no effect. He then issued a legal notice dated 15.12.2006 and thereafter, credit of the deposit of the premium made by him was given to him. The contention of the complainant is that he had been running from pillar to post and to put in his best efforts, but the OPs especially OP no.6 refused to accept the payment made by the complainant from time to time which resulting in mental tension and agony 3 FIRST APPEAL NO. 746 OF 2007 and unnecessary harassment to him. According to him it all happened due to negligent behavior of the OPs especially Vinod Sharma/OP no.6. The complainant thereafter filed the present complaint for claiming compensation of Rs.50,000/- with litigation cost of Rs. 10,000/- for the harassment and mental tension suffered by him.
3. The complaint was contested by filing a written reply on behalf of OPs no.3, 4 & 6. It was admitted that the complainant had obtained a policy from Ambala City which was transferred to Fazilka. It was also admitted that he had already deposited the premium due for June,2005 at Jalandhar Unit-I on 05.07.2005. It was denied that the complainant met Vinod Sharma/OP No.6 or showed him the receipt dated 5.7.2005. It was admitted that the premium deposited by the complainant through Metro Area network through branch Jalandhar Unit-I was not updated due to error in the transmission line of network. The branch office Fazilka/OP no.4 sent a letter and requested the Jalandhar office to update the premium paid by the complainant and had also to write to Manager(IT), at Amritsar for getting the premium receipt dated 05.07.2005 from Jalandhar Branch Office unit-I updated. Subsequently, on the representation dated 27.10.2006 of the complainant the interest and penalty were waved, the receipt of legal notice dated 15.10.2006 was admitted, and the policy was revived on 29.12.2006. It was denied if the behavior of Vinod Sharma/OP no.6 towards the complainant was volcanic. All other allegations were denied.
4. No separate written reply was filed on behalf of OP no.1, 2 & 5.
5. Both the parties were given opportunity to produce evidence in support of their contentions.
6. After hearing the Ld. Counsel for the parties and perusing the record, the Ld. District Forum vide impugned order dated 09.03.2007 dismissed the 4 FIRST APPEAL NO. 746 OF 2007 complaint on the ground that the premium deposited by complainant at Jalandhar could not be credited to his account due to snag in the computer networking and there was no monetary loss suffered by the complainant. The complainant has challenged the same through this appeal.
7. We have heard the arguments of the Ld. Counsel for the parties and have perused the record.
8. The main facts of the case are admitted. It is admitted by the OPs that the complainant had insurance policy which was being serviced at Ambala City, the premium was paid half yearly and it was subsequently transferred to OP no.4 at Fazilka. It is admitted that the complainant had deposited the premium at Jalandhar on 5.7.2005 but the same was not credited to his account. This fact is also admitted that the complainant approached the OP no.4 and had met Vinod Sharma/OP no.6. It is also admitted that right from 5.7.2005 till 27.12.2006 the complainant made efforts so that the policy, premium of which was being paid by him regularly, did not lapse. It is also admitted that the policy was shown to have lapsed and for its revival interest and penalty were to be charged from the complainant. The reason given by the OPs is that the premium could not be updated due to snag in the computer networking which was a new concept. The Learned District Forum accepted this contention and held that faults are likely therein due to human and technical errors for quite some time, and customers, who are to be ultimately benefited by this networking, have to bear with this problem of networking for that time. The Learned District Forum did not consider as to how much mental tension and harassment the complainant was undergoing, after paying the premium regularly he was being told that his policy has lapsed and he was running from pillar to post. It is not understood as to how this networking was to benefit the complainant, who was rather suffering due to the lapse of the insurance policy.
5FIRST APPEAL NO. 746 OF 2007
9. The Learned counsel for the OP/respondent has argued that the deficiency arose due to the defect in the computer networking, that the premium paid by the complainant was not updated in his policy account. In order to prove this fact the OPs have not produced any document/evidence to suggest, if there was any snag in the computer networking. This bald assertion made by the OPs has been accepted by the Learned District Forum without any proof there of. It was therefore, necessary for the OPs to have produced evidence to prove that there was any snag in the computer networking due to which the premium was not updated in the account issued by one office to the other. Therefore, the OP has failed to prove if there was any snag in computer networking. Even if for arguments sake this contention is accepted to be correct, it does not help the OPs/respondents.
10. The OPs did not make any efforts for more than 8 months in updating the premium in policy account manually. Of course, before the computerized networking came into being the office, working staff used to upload manually but it is not explained by the OPs as to why they were not manually updating the deposit when they found that there was snag in the networking. The OPs rather continued harassing him, there was, therefore, clear cut deficiency in service on the part of OPs no.4, 5 & 6.
11. It is admitted that OP no. 6 was working as Administrative Officer in the LIC Branch at Fazilka, to which branch the insurance policy of the complainant was transferred. It is proved that the complainant had met Vinod Sharma in his office but the contention of the OP No.6 is that receipt was not shown to him. We cannot believe this contention because a person who had deposited the money and wanted the amount to be updated in his account would not withhold the original receipt lying with him. Vinod Sharma, OP no.6 is, therefore, telling a lie that the receipt was not produced by the complainant. The entire evidence led by 6 FIRST APPEAL NO. 746 OF 2007 the complainant shows that if Vinod Sharma appreciated the problem of the complainant the matter would not have reached this stage but he was blind to the apathy being faced by the complainant. There was clear cut deficiency in service on his part.
12. The premium was to be updated by OP no.5/ Jalandhar branch of the LIC, but they also failed to update the same and created problem for the complainant. We cannot believe that a technical snag in the computer networking continued for more than 8 months from 5.7.2005 to 27.12.2006 when ultimately the policy of the complainant which was said to have been lapsed was revived. It was, therefore, gross negligence on the part of the OPs in attending to the grievance of the complainant.
13. In view of the above discussion we are of the opinion that the case of the complainant was not only proved by evidence led by him but was otherwise also admitted by the OPs. The Learned District Forum therefore, wrongly dismissed the complaint, but should have awarded appropriate compensation to the complainant for delay in updating the account thereby causing harassment, mental agony and tension to the complainant.
14. In view of the above discussion we are of the opinion that the present appeal must succeed. The same is accordingly allowed with cost. The complaint is consequently allowed and the following relief is granted.
(i) The OPs no.4&5 would jointly and severally pay Rs.10,000/- as compensation to the complainant.
(ii) OP no.6/Vinod Sharma would pay Rs.10,000/- as compensation to the complainant for causing him mental tension and physical harassment.7
FIRST APPEAL NO. 746 OF 2007
(iii) The complainant would be entitled to litigation cost of Rs.5,000/-
before the District Forum and Rs.5,000/- in this appeal
15. The OPs may recover this amount from the officers/officials who were required to update the payment of the premium but neglected to do so, of course, after serving a show cause notice to them alongwith serviced.
(Jagroop Singh Mahal) Presiding Judicial Member (Baldev Singh Sekhon) Member March 30, 2012 rashmi