ROHIT I.MARU vs MANAGER LIFE INSURANCE CORPN. OF INDIA

THE complainant was in the employment of Shri Ambica Tubes from June 73 to July 85. As an employee of the company under the super annuation scheme which was monitored by Life Insurance Corporation of India (hereinafter referred to as Corporation) a master policy was issued by the Corporation bearing No.GS/1523. Under the provisions of the policy the employer would contribute certain premium every year towards the said policy and the Corporation in turn would guarantee payment of pension either lumpsum or in the form of monthly annuity to the beneficiary i.e. the complainant at the time of normal retirement date. THE normal retirement age was 60 and the payment was to be made by the Corporation out of the contribution collected under the policy. It is further alleged that the complainant attained the normal retirement at the age of 60 years on 29.1.92 and was entitled to receive from the Corporation lumpsum payment equivalent to l/3rd of the amount contributed by the company as commutation of pension and also to receive monthly annuity (Monthly Pension) in advance every month as per the rules of the Corporation. According to the affidavit filed by the complainant, he has received an amount of Rs. 57,123/- from the Corporation after lodging a complaint, in his account of Central Bank of India on April 7, 1992. He has further stated that he had specifically informed the Corporation vide his letter dated 23.2.92 that he wanted to invest the proceeds for the purpose of tax saving instruments in order to get the benefits of income tax which he was investing every year. That for the Asst. Year 1992-93 he was able to invest an amount of Rs. 17,000/- under Section 80 CCA due to non-availability offends due from the Corporation before 31.3.92 and as he could not utilise the balance amount of Rs. 33,000/- under Section 80 CCA and 80 CCB of the Income-tax Act the impact on his tax liability was very high and according to him the opposite party is not only liable for the higher rate of interest but also for the damages he has suffered on account of the negligence of the Corporation in withholding the payment.

THE Corporation has denied its liability. THE opposite party has strongly contended that the complainant has inflated the claim so-as to bring the complaint within the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Commission and, therefore, the Commission should reject the matter. According to the opposite party on calculation being made after the receipt of the letter from the complainant dated 23.2.92 an amount of Rs. 53,925/- was available as commuted value being l/3rd of the purchase price worked to Rs. 1,61,775/-and an amount of Rs. 1,066/- was monthly annuity payable. An advance receipt for Rs. 57,123/- being consolidated amount of commuted value and three annuity instalments were sent to the complainant on 5.3.92 requesting him to send advance receipt duly signed by him so that the Corporation can release the cheque. THE advance receipt duly signed was returned alongwith a letter dated 16.3.92 in which the complainant had mentioned that the cheque may be personally handed over to the authorised representative who will come alongwith the letter containing the authority and signature of the person duly attested by the complainant. He has also stated that the person would come between 20th and 22nd March, 1992. According to the opposite party such person had come to collect the cheque but he did not produce the authority letter as mentioned by the complainant and hence the cheque could not be handed over to him but the same was posted by registered post No. 5331 dated 24.3.92 as the Corporation had waited for the man to come and, therefore, the Corporation could not be blamed for despatching the cheque little later as per the instructions of the complainant. THE cheque was sent to the address of Mr. Maru A/1, Amijyot Apartment, Nr. Rajnagar Club, Ambawadi, Ahmedabad-6. According to the opposite party if the delivery of the said cheque was delayed by postal authority or for other reasons the Corporation cannot be held responsible for the same. The complainant has filed a rejoinder affidavit. According to it was the duty of the Corporation to make the payment and ought not to have waited for the letter from the complainant dated 23.2.92. According to him the papers were taken up only thereafter. Advance receipt was not mailed on 5.3.92 but much later. According to him the cheque was not given to his representative who had the authority letter with the signature attested by him as well as the bank. The envelope mailed to him was deliberately addressed incorrectly inspite of the correct address on record.

The oral evidence has been taken and we will refer to the evidence of the Corporation and the witness has admitted that under the policy the amount was due and payable on 29.1.92 and since we have received the reminder we have sent the advance receipt. They had waited till 23.3.92 for the representative of the complainant with authority. The representative came but had not brought the authority and, therefore, the cheque was sent by registered post. The witness has admitted that the complainant himself had come on 28.1.92 and 8.2.92 personally and had also made enquiry by STD telephone. Though he was not personally present when the representative came, he knew after enquiry that person had not brought the authority letter. The controversy arose regarding the pin code number which according to the Corporation right pin code number was written - 380 006. It is true that, that has been corrected and 380 061 is written but after seeing the envelope he stated that the Corporation has rightly written the pin code as 380 006 and subsequently somebody might have changed to 380 066 and at other place it is 380 061. He did not know whether this is rewritten by the Postal Department in red ink or not. The witness has not admitted that this correction was made so that the letter may reach the complainant late. He has admitted that the complainant had instructed to give the payment before 27th March in his Central Bank account.

THE complainant has claimed Rs. 151,546/- under various heads viz. travelling allowance (Rs. 2500/-) expenses made for telephone charges (Rs. 800/-), additional tax liability (Rs. 27,000/-) Original amount (Rs. 57,123/-) compensation (Rs.57,123/-) etc. THEre is no dispute that the Corporation has already paid Rs. 57,123/- the amount due and payable after the filing of the complaint. According to our opinion the claims regarding the tax liability is not a consequential damage but a remote damage. If the payment is not made by the Corporation the complainant could have borrowed the money from any other source including the bank and could have claimed for higher interest. THE real grievance of the complainant is that even though he had sent the representative the cheque was not given. Here also, it is difficult to decide whether he has sent the authority letter or not on account of the contradictory statements by both the parties. But if the complainant had sent the representative, there is no reason why he has not sent the authority letter. We a re, therefore, of the opinion that he might have sent the authority letter but the Corporation might have thought it proper to send the cheque by registered post. So far the correction in the pin code is concerned, it is not very much relevant except that it has caused little delay but when the Corporation has sent the cheque by registered post and if there is any delay, they cannot be held liable and we do not find any reason for the employees of the Corporation to write wrong pin code number. It is possible that an error might have been committed but ultimately the cheque has reached the complainant and, therefore, at the most the Corporation can be held liable for the interest. Under the provisions of Section 73 of the Contract Act remote damages are not payable. THE damages which naturally arises in usual course of things from such breach are payable or which the parties knew when they made a contract to be likely to result from the breach of it. Such compensation is not be given for any remote and indirect loss or damage sustained by reason of the breach. If there is a money transaction and the amount is paid late, the other party might be liable to pay interest and not anything else. THE amount was payable on 29.1.192 and the cheque has been sent on 24.3.92. So there is some delay but that always happens in such a big Corporation. Even then as the complainant was assured of making the payment and he appears to be in need of money, we are of the opinion that if we award interest @ 18% for the delayed period, it will fully compensate the complainant. It appears that the complainant is little more sensitive and is not prepared to condone any indifference or deliberate delay. We endorse his views but we have also to consider the circumstances prevailing in this country and shall have to take a moderate view in the matter. We are, therefore, of the opinion that in this case the Corporation shall have to pay interest @ 18% and some cost. THE rest of the prayers of the complainant is exorbitant and not allowable under law. We feel that this complaint should have been filed before the District Forum. But since we have already gone into it and taken evidence, we do not propose to send it to the District Forum. We, therefore, pass the following order: ORDER THE opposite party shall pay interest @ 18% p.a. on the outstanding amount of Rs. 57,123/- from 29.1.92 to 24.3.1992 and will pay some cost also since the complainant had to personally come and go and had to file a complaint. We, therefore, quantify the cost at Rs. 250/- only. Complaint allowed with costs. ______________