‘LIC’s miscalculation isn’t consumer’s fault’ | mumbai | Hindustan Times
Today in New Delhi, India
Sep 26, 2017-Tuesday
-°C
New Delhi
  • Humidity
    -
  • Wind
    -

‘LIC’s miscalculation isn’t consumer’s fault’

The Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission has ruled that Life Insurance Corporation of India cannot ask its consumer to pay up for miscalculation by it, while charging for the policy, after it has matured.

mumbai Updated: Feb 16, 2011 02:15 IST
Abhishek Dandekar

The Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission has ruled that Life Insurance Corporation of India cannot ask its consumer to pay up for miscalculation by it, while charging for the policy, after it has matured.

The commission upheld the order by the Pune District Consumer Forum in which it ruled in favour of the complainant that it amounted to deficiency in service on the part of LIC to have charged the complainant for the offer amount miscalculated by them, after the policy matured.

The commission dismissing the appeal by LIC, directed it to comply with the forum’s order in which it asked the corporation to return the difference amount of Rs. 62,821 with interest.

According to the complainant and Pune resident Ram Iyer, in April 2007 he requested LIC to change the tenure of his policy, taken in year 1991, from 35 years to 17 years.

In August the same year, he was made an offer and the term was reduced on payment of Rs 1,15,378.

The policy, after the reduction, was due for maturity in August 2008.

It was in January 2008 that LIC realized that there was a miscalculation in making the offer and there arose a difference of Rs62,821 that Iyer was expected to pay. After receiving the information, the complainant approached the corporation but his grievances were not addressed properly and meanwhile the policy matured.

Later the corporation settled the dispute by paying the rest of the policy amount but withholding the miscalculated amount. The complainant then approached the Pune District forum.

The commission ruled that it was not legal and right on the part of LIC to raise the point of mistake in calculation of the offer amount and asking the complainant to pay for it at the time of maturity of policy.


Carrier liable to pay for goods damaged while shifting: Forum

Mumbai: The latest ruling of the Mumbai Suburban District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum may come a big relief to those who suffer heavy losses, in terms of damages to their household goods, while shifting from one place to another.

The forum ruled that the liability of a carrier is that of an insurer and if there’s any damage to goods entrusted to him, the complainant need not prove negligence but just prove that goods transported by the carrier were lost or damaged, allowing the complainant to claim damages to his household articles.

The forum presided by JL Deshpande, VG Joshi and DS Bindurkar invoked the afore-mentioned principle under Section 9 of the Carriers Act and ordered the carrier — Agarwal Packers and Movers — to pay Rs1,30,000 for the damages to the complainant’s articles during transport and Rs25,000 as compensation for mental agony and harassment and Rs10,000 towards the cost of complaint.

Anuj Sethi had entrusted Agarwal Packers and Movers to shift his household goods from Delhi to Mumbai, but they were handed over to him in badly damaged condition in Mumbai.

As per the agreement, Sethi said, the articles were to be transported in a 20-feet closed container on April 19, 2008. The complainant insured the goods for Rs3,00,000 and paid Rs49,550 to the transport company, including Rs9,000 as insurance premium.

However, he was shocked to find that the goods were brought to Mumbai in an open-canter truck and that too in mutilated cardboard boxes, which damaged many of his household articles.

He took the photographs of the damaged articles.

After a survey by the transport company’s agent and constant follow-up by the complainant, the company offered him a measly sum of Rs30,000, as against complainant’s claim of Rs1,29,100.

The company, however, contradicted its earlier version and contended that the truck that left Delhi with Sethi’s stuff had met with an accident on its way and so his household articles were shifted to other vehicle.

But they could not produce any evidence of any officer or helper present when the goods were unloaded or the survey report of damages that could rebut the evidence of the complainant.

The forum observed that the complainant had proved the damage to his goods and compensation offered by the company towards it was not just. The forum directed the company to pay Sethi Rs1,30,000 towards damages and further Rs35,000 towards mental agony and cost of complaints.