State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Lic Of India vs Madhu Gupta on 19 January, 2017
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
PUNJAB
DAKSHIN MARG, SECTOR 37-A, CHANDIGARH.
First Appeal No.01 of 2013
Date of institution : 01.01.2013
Date of decision : 19.01.2017
1. Life Insurance Corporation of India, through its Divisional
Manager ,Chandigarh.
2. Life insurance Corporation of India, through Incharge, Hall
Bazar, Amritsar.
....Appellants/Opposite Parties
Versus
1. Madhu Gupta alias Romy Mahajan, House No. 316,
Dharampuri, Gali No. 2, Partap Bazar, Chheharta, Amritsar.
....Respondent/complainant
2. Rakesh Mahajan son of Chaman Lal resident of House
No.3410, Gali Kakkian, Katra Baggian, Amritsar.
....Respondent/Opposite Party No.2
First Appeal against the order dated
08.11.2012 of the District Consumer
Disputes Redressal Forum, Amritsar.
Quorum:-
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Paramjeet Singh Dhaliwal, President
Mr. Vinod Kumar Gupta, Member
Present:-
For the appellants : Shri Sandeep Bhardwaj, Advocate For respondent No.1: None For respondent No.2: Ex parte.
JUSTICE PARAMJEET SINGH DHALIWAL, PRESIDENT :
This appeal has been preferred against the order dated 08/11/2012 passed by the District Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum, Amritsar. (In short 'the District Forum'), whereby the complaint filed by the respondent No. 1/complainant has been allowed.First Appeal No.01 of 2013 2
2. It would be apposite to mention at the outset that hereinafter the parties will be referred as have been arrayed before the District Forum.
3. The brief relevant fact for disposal of this appeal are to the effect that complainant was married to opposite party No. 2. Their marriage was dissolved by decree of divorce dated 19.04.2008. During the subsistence of the marriage, the complainant and opposite party No. 2 had opened a joint bank account being husband and wife. The complainant got life insurance policy No. 470391924 from opposite party No. 1 on 11/12/1996. Opposite party No. 2 husband of the complainant by forging the signatures of the complainant obtained a cheque No.317599 for Rs. 32,171/- on 18/02/2009 and the same was got encashed from the joint account of complainant by her husband opposite party No. 2. It is further case of the complainant that she also got another policy from opposite party No. 1 bearing No. 471671053 dated 15/10/2009. The said policy was also got closed by the husband of the complainant in a fraudulent manner. It was the apprehension of the complainant that the cheque of the same has also been obtained by the opposite party No. 2. The complainant took a categorical stand that she never surrendered the policies prematurely, but the same has been done fraudulently. There is deficiency in service on the part of opposite party No. 1.
4. Upon notice, opposite parties appeared before the District Forum and filed their respective replies. In reply, opposite party No. 1 took the stand that complainant, policyholder of policy First Appeal No.01 of 2013 3 No. 471671053 has surrendered the policy along with relevant document on 15/10/2009. Accordingly a cheque No. 260421 dated 20/10/2009 for a sum of Rs. 11,054/- was prepared in the name of complainant but the same was not got encashed. It is further stand of the opposite party No.1 that complainant also surrendered the other policy No. 470391924 on 24/02/2009 and a cheque No. 0317 599 for a sum of Rs.32,171/- was prepared and the said cheque was presented for encashment and was duly encashed on the same date and the amount was credited to account No.1547357222 maintained with the Central Bank of India, Hall Bazar, Amritsar. Subsequently a complaint was moved that amount has been withdrawn fraudulently by the husband from the joint account after the divorce. Thereafter the amount was deposited by the opposite party No. 2 with opposite party No. 1 at its cash counter and is lying with opposite party No. 1. The amount of both the policies is lying with opposite party No. 1. It is the case of opposite party No. 1 that complainant is at liberty to receive the amount.
5. The opposite party No. 2 filed a separate reply taking a stand that complainant herself surrendered the policies and the amount was got deposited in joint account with her consent and thereafter it was encashed from the joint account. It is further mentioned in the reply that when complainant started levelling false allegation, he has deposited the amount back with the LIC.
6. In order to prove the case complainant tendered into evidence her own affidavit Ex.C1 along with Ex.C-2 to Ex.C-12. First Appeal No.01 of 2013 4 Opposite party No. 1 tendered into evidence affidavit of Makhan Lal, Manager Legal Ex.R-2 alongwith documents Ex.R-3 to Ex.R-
33. Opposite party No. 2 tendered his own affidavit Ex. RW-2/A and payment receipt Ex.R-1.
7. The District Forum after examining and considering the evidence on record allowed the complaint and passed the impugned order. The relevant portion is as under:
"So, simply by relying upon the unauthenticated documents produced by opposite party No.2, husband of complainant Madhu Gupta, regarding surrendering of her policies without taking the original policy bonds and without the written consent of the complainant, the opposite party No.1 should not have cancelled the policies prematurely. Thereby complainant has suffered loss of amount which she should have got on maturity of the aforesaid policies. However, the amount of both the policies is lying with opposite party No.1 and complainant is at liberty to get that amount, from opposite party No.1, but certainly opposite party No.1 has committed deficiency of service towards the complainant. So complaint is disposed of with the directions to opposite party No.1 to pay compensation of Rs.25,000/- and litigation expenses Rs.2,000/- to the complainant. Copies of the orders be furnished to the parties free of costs. File is ordered to be consigned to the record.". First Appeal No.01 of 2013 5
8. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellants and perused the record, as none has appeared on behalf of respondent No.1/complainant and respondent No.2 has not appeared in the appeal and was proceeded against ex parte.
9. The learned counsel for the appellants vehemently contended that appellants are not liable for the alleged act of the opposite party No.2, husband of the complainant. The District Forum has erred in law in allowing the complaint of the complainant. The District Forum has not appreciated the fact that policies were in the name of complainant and the same were in her custody. The relevant documents were surrendered before the appellants and thereafter the cheques were issued and one of them was encashed by opposite party No. 2, who happened to be the husband of the complainant and the complainant was having a joint account with her husband.
10. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the appellants.
11. Admittedly the complainant had taken two LIC policies from opposite party No. 1; Policy No.470391924 dated 11/12/1996 Ex.C -11 and its date of maturity is in the year 2016 and another policy No. 4701671053 Ex.C-10 with date of maturity 14/10/2021. It is also admitted fact that earlier complainant and opposite party No. 2 were husband and wife. The relationship of husband and wife has been dissolved, vide decree of divorce dated 19/04/2008 Ex.C-5. In this regard, she has informed opposite party No.1 as well as the Bank, where the joint savings account was existing. First Appeal No.01 of 2013 6
12. It appears that after the divorce, with a purpose to harass the complainant and to misappropriate the amount of the complainant, opposite party No.2 got the aforesaid policy illegally surrendered in connivance with the officials of the opposite party No. 1. It was the duty of opposite party No.1/appellants before us that they should have compared the signatures of the complainant with the signatures available in the record. Admittedly the document, on the basis of which allegedly the policies have been surrendered, does not bear the signatures of the complainant. The policies were to mature in the year 2016 and 2021. Certainly the opposite parties would have asked the complainant, why policies were being surrendered prematurely. As per the rules of the Life Insurance Corporation of India, a policy can be discharged only if the original policy is produced before the competent authority and the stamp of discharge on the back of original policy is affixed, which is duly signed by competent authority. There is a categorical finding of the District Forum that the policies in original were never produced before the authorities of Life Insurance Corporation and these are still with the complainant. It is strange, how without verifying any original policy, the surrender value cheques were issued; specifically without verifying the signature of the complainant-policyholder. There is categorical evidence on record that as and when it came to the notice of the complainant, she lodged an FIR No. 59 dated 01/07/2010 at police station E- Division, Amritsar under section 420/467 /468/471 IPC, although First Appeal No.01 of 2013 7 the issue of forgery allegedly committed by opposite party No. 2 cannot be decided in the complaint and appeal.
13. From the evidence on record of the District Forum, it is clear that authorities at the helm of the affairs of the life insurance Corporation prematurely cancelled the policies/discharged the policies in question without the request of the complainant. The amount of premium is deposited by the policyholder, which remains with the Corporation as trust money and policy carries other benefits such as income tax rebate etc. Before passing an order of surrender of premature policy, the public authority should have exercised the same vigilance, as generally a person of ordinary prudence would exercise. The concerned competent authority should have verified the signatures of the complainant and insisted on production of original policy, so that proper endorsement of surrender/discharge could have been made on the original policy in order to avoid fraudulent discharges. The senior officers of the corporation should make an endeavour that means to be devised to ensure that every public servant realizes fully and clearly that she would be held personally responsible for any loss sustained by the Corporation through fraud or negligence on his/her part.
14. The corporation authorities appear to have taken the matter casually and permitted an unauthorized person, on the basis of unauthenticated documents, to discharge the policies. It appears that this has been facilitated by the laxity of supervision on the part of superior officer over the subordinate officials. First Appeal No.01 of 2013 8 Certainly, opposite party No. 1 has committed deficiency in service to the complainant, who has taken policies for insuring her life. We do not find any justification to interfere with the impugned order passed by the District Forum.
15. In view of the above discussion, the present appeal is dismissed. Since none is appearing on behalf of the respondents, costs are made easy.
16. The sum of Rs.13,500/- deposited by the appellants at the time of filing of the appeal, along with interest which has accrued thereon, if any, shall be remitted by the registry to respondent No.1/complainant, by way of a crossed cheque/demand draft after the expiry of 45 days of the sending of certified copy of the order to them.
17. The appeal could not be decided within the stipulated timeframe due to heavy pendency of Court cases.
(JUSTICE PARAMJEET SINGH DHALIWAL) PRESIDENT (VINOD KUMAR GUPTA) MEMBER January 19, 2017.
(Gurmeet S)