SHRI PARTAP SINGH VERMA S/O LATE SH. H.L. VERMA 142, STATE BANK NAGAR PASCHIM VIHAR NEW DELHI Vs. LIC OF INDIA KASTURBA GANDHI MARG, NEW DELHI - 110001

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition has been filed by the petitioner/complainant against the order dated 07.03.2011 passed by the learned State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Delhi (in short, 'the State Commission') in Appeal No. FA -09/184 - LIC of India Vs. Shri Pratap Singh Verma by which order passed by District Forum was modified. Brief facts of the case are that complainant -petitioner invested Rs. 10,00,000/ - in Bima Nevesh (single premium) "without profit with compounded guaranteed additions policy" for 5 years commencing from 7.4.2001. Complainant submitted the requisites on 16.2.2006 for payment of the policy amount on its maturity and respondent -opposite party dispatched a cheque of Rs. 15,03,657/ - on 3.5.2006 to the petitioner which was received by the petitioner on 10.5.2006. Complainant by letter dated 16.6.2006 intimated to the respondent -OP that he was paid Rs. 25,343/ - less than what was due on maturity and filed complaint. OP -respondent denied claim and submitted that payment was made as per the terms and conditions of policy and prayed for dismissal of complaint. District Forum allowed complaint and directed the respondent to pay Rs. 25,343/ - as balance amount along with Rs. 1,00,000/ - towards compensation and Rs. 5,000/ - as litigation cost. Learned State Commission vide its impugned order modified order of the District Forum and held that the complainant is entitled only to Rs. 2,631/ - as interest and costs of Rs. 5,000/ - as costs against which this revision petition has been filed.

(2.) HEARD the petitioner in person and learned Counsel for the respondent and perused record.

(3.) PETITIONER submitted that he was paid Rs. 25,343/ - less than what was due on maturity but could not show terms of policy to prove that he was paid less. He submitted that agent gave him calculation chart but that cannot be believed and respondent was under an obligation to pay only to the extent of terms of policy. In such circumstances, State Commission has rightly disallowed claim of Rs. 25,343/ -.