Peerless General Finance and Investment Co. Ltd. vs JAGMOHAN SINGH

THIS revision petition has been filed by the petitioner against the order of the State Commission only partly allowing his appeal.

BRIEFLY put, the facts of the case are that the respondent/complainant obtained a policy from the petitioner Company and paid the first instalment of Rs. 1,485/- on 27.8.1981 and when he wanted to pay further instalments, the petitioner Company had closed office in Raipur. When he came to know again of the re-opening of the office in Raipur in 1987, he approached them for depositing the instalments, which was refused on the ground that policy has lapsed. When the complainant requested for refund of the deposited amount it was not refunded for which he approached the District Forum who after hearing both the parties directed the petitioner to renew the policy in case the complainant deposits all instalments without interest within two months; then the petitioner Company shall revive the policy. Against this order an appeal was filed before the State Commission by the petitioner where the only grievance made out was the direction of the District Forum to the payment of instalments ''without interest''. Keeping in view the pleas of the petitioner the State Commission modified the order of the District Forum to the extent that the instalments in arrears should be payable with 1% rate of interest. Now the petitioner has filed the revision petition before us. It was argued by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that policy is a contract and parties are governed by the terms of the contract. He drew our attention to clause 6 of the policy which reads as under : "Surrender value : The certificate may be surrendered to the Company at any time after payment of minimum two full years'' subscriptions and after expiry of three full years from the date of commencement, if however, subscription have been paid for minimum three full years, the certificate may be surrendered even before expiry of three years from the date of commencement. The Surrender Value is payable at the rate of 90% (ninety p.c.) of the subscriptions paid after the first year. If, however, subscriptions are paid for full seven years (i.e. 84 months) the Surrender Value after expiry of seven years will be paid @ 100% of all the subscription, including the first year''s subscription."

According to him since the complainant had deposited only one instalment, so under the terms of the policy, he is not entitled to any refund, for which eligibility clause is payment of minimum of two full years subscription. We also see from record that from the time the complainant filed the complaint, his grouse is that some time in 1982 the Company closed its office in Raipur and re-opened the office only in 1987. There is no rebuttal of this statement; when there is no office where was the complainant to go and deposit the instalments ? As the case stands today, it is this major negligence and deficiency on the part of the petitioner Company which accounts for the subsequent events. Being out of picture for five years or so without any forwarding address and then blaming the complainant for not depositing the amount of instalment. We cannot perceive any better contradiction in terms. On sudden resurfacing and declaring the policy as lapsed on account of non-payment could be nothing more than a device to usurp the money of small and poor people, be alluring them into this sort of attractive schemes.

WE find no merit in the revision petition filed before us and dismiss it, cost of Rs. 2,000/- to be given by the petitioner to the complainant. Revision Petition dismissed.