NARASAMMA Vs. BRANCH MANAGER LIC OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The complainants who are wife and minor children of one M. N. Hanumantharaju have filed this complaint before this Commission to issue a direction to release the entire amount on the policy bearing No.361040176 insured by the deceased M. N. Hanumantharaju with the applicable bonus, accidental and all other benefits amounting to Rs.6,60,000/- with interest @ 18% p. a. on the said amount from 29.9.1997 till payment and also for a direction to the opposite parties to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards deficiency in service, Rs.25,000/- towards unfair and restrictive trade practices and Rs.25,000/- towards negligence.

(2.) The allegations made in the complaint are that one M. N. Hanumantharaju was an agent bearing No.2455602 under LIC of India and he had also taken a policy on his life under Bheema Kiran in Policy No.361040176 dated 28.8.1994 for a period of 30 years on a monthly premium of Rs.292/-. The said monthly premiums were to be deducted regularly from out of the commission payable to the said M. N. Hanumantharaju and the same were deducted from October, 1994 regularly.

(3.) The said M. N. Hanumantharaju's agency came to be terminated w. e. f.12.6.1996 but he was eligible to receive renewal commission on policies canvassed earlier. He was getting a commission even after the termination of the agency also. The said Hanumantharaju when he was alive had given a letter dated 25.3.1997 requesting the opposite parties by giving all the particulars of the policies sold under his agency and the commission he is entitled to get. The said letter has been addressed to the Senior Divisional Manager, LIC of India who is opposite party-2 who in turn forwarded the said letter to the 1st opposite party i. e. the Branch Manager, LIC of India, Doddaballapur to take appropriate action in the matter. In the said letter the insured had made it clear to the opposite parties with regard to the policies sold under his agency and commission payable regularly till the maturity of the said policies. According to the complainants it was incumbent upon the opposite parties to adjust the premium due on the policy from out of the commission amount due to the insured Hanumantharaju which was retained by the opposite parties. The opposite parties did not do this book adjustment for the reasons best known to them, though substantial amount of commission payable to the insured was available with them along with the policy records pertaining to the insured who has insured his life with the same branch where he was operating as an agent. The opposite parties had no reasons to withhold the commission payable to him for a considerable period of time without adjusting the said commission amount towards premium on the said policy.