Orissa

Kendujhar

CC/51/2015

Rajesh Kumar Panda - Complainant(s)

Versus

1. Branch Manager, Allahabad Bank - Opp.Party(s)

Sri S.K. Rout & Associates

22 Feb 2017

ORDER

IN THE COURT OF THE PRESIDENT DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KENDUJHAR

CONSUMER COMPLAINT CASE NO. 51 OF 2015

    Rajesh Kumar Panda, aged 40 years,

    S/o- Late Kalipada Panda,

    Resident of Barbil, Ward No. 6,

    Behind College Hostel,

    P.O/P.S- Barbil, Dist- Keonjhar……………………………………….Complainant

                                   Vrs.

1. Branch Manager,

    Allahabad Bank,

    At/P.O/P.S- Barbil,

    Dist- Keonjhar

2. Manager Legal,

    Universal Sompo General Insurance Co. Ltd.

    1^st Floor, Plot No - EL/94,

    TTC Industrial Area MIDC - Mhape,

    Navi Mumbai - 400710

3. Manager,

    Universal Sompo General Insurance Co. Ltd.

    1^st Floor, 98 Kharavel Nagar,

    Keshari Takies Complex,

    Bhubaneswar- 751001…………..………………………………………Op. Parties

 

PRESENT:

Shri Purushottam Samantara, President

Smt. B. Giri, Member (W)

Adv. for the Complainant - Sri S.K. Rout & Associates

Adv. for the OPs - Sri A.K. Pattnaik & R.R. Rana

_________________________________________________________________________________________ 

Date of Filing - 16.11.2015                                                                                          Date of Order- 22.02.2017

SHRI PURUSHOTTAM SAMANTARA, PRESIDENT

1. Succinctly put, the complainant filed the case in averment that he owned a Mahindra Bolero SLX bearing Regd. No.OR-02BC-8814 financed by Allahabad Bank, Barbil. Further said that as per Bank Insurance norms, the bank is a vendor of product under Universal Sompo General Insurance Co. Ltd. to the public. As the bank sanctioned loan, so also retains the insurable interest, thus deducting premium from the account in respect of Insurance Policy is continuing since 2013.

2. It is averred on the year 2015, the vehicle Insurance was to expired on dt.21.02.2015 and suo moto transferred Rs.11,633/- from the SB Account No.22051832425 to Current Account No.50006087382 towards renewal of Insurance against the expired policy. Relied on the statement Account as obtained.

3. Further complained, neither the policy issued nor the bank pay any heed to his problem, callousness and negligence continued and being apprehensive of further harassment obtained a comprehensive policy from National Insurance Co. Ltd, Barbil branch on dt.10.03.2015. The Policy No.16330181140000004412 in paid consideration of Rs.8,047/- that runs cover from 10.03.2015 to 09.03.2016.

4. Being aggrieved with the actions of the OPs instituted the case. Praying to refund the amount as made debited without giving any service. The actions are clear cut deficiency of service, prayed direction be made to pay jointly & severally along with interest and relief that deemed fit under the law. Reliance placed on all the policy copies, statement of account, letter and affidavit. 

5. Upon notice, the OP1 neither appeared nor preferred to file any version although notice is made sufficient under sub-section 4 of section 28(A). Being a willful default.

6. The OP2 &3 appeared on 14^th January 2016, filed the version on 21^st June 2016, beyond the statutory limit although case has been filed on 16^th November 2015.

7. The OP2 &3 averred the Insurer has issued a policy bearing No. 2311/50489861/05/B00 against the vehicle No.OR-02BC-8814 for the period 26.02.2015 to 25.02.2016 and dispatched to the intermediary i.e. OP1 whom the Insurance premium was received, hence the Insurer cannot be saddled with any responsibility being innocent.

8. In addition also stated that as per the request of Insured, the Insurer cancelled the policy due to double insurance with National Insurance Co. Ltd. under Policy No.163301/31/14/6100004049 being period of 10.03.2015 to 09.03.2016.

9. Again admitted since the policy with National Insurance Co. runs from 10.03.15, the present Insurer deducted an amount of Rs.471/- towards Non-Insured period i.e. 26.02.2015 to 10.03.2015 from the premium sum of Rs.11,633/- which was received against “Private Car Package Policy bearing No.2311/50489861/05/B00 under the balance amount refunded on 03.12.15 to Allahabad Bank. No error or deficient committed in rendering service.

10. The case is devoid of merit and in the above circumstance liable to be dismissed with costs. Relied on Refund note and policy No.2311/50489861 issued on 31.03.2015.

11. We have heard learned advocates submission and perused the record on hand.

12. The learned counsel for the complainant submitted, sanction of loans augurs insurance by the lender because of Insurable interest, Accordingly since 2013, Allahabad Bank ensuring insurance of the vehicle Regd. No.OR-02BC-8814 in question and giving policy certificate. But on the year 2015 although the bank deducted an amount Rs.11,633/- on the date 26.02.2015 from the SB Account No.22051832425 and transfer to the Mumbai branch Current Account, but failed to provide the certificate of policy that issued with the evidence placed before this forum by way of statement Account which is a robust proof and the remain silent on the issue of refund shows the committance of gross negligence.

13. Again OP2 &3 resisted, that on receiving the premium from the bank, the policy has been issued and policy No.2311/50489861/05/B00, which is issued on 31.03.2015 covering 26.02.2015 to 25.2.2016, which is not delivered to the beneficiary by person nor intimated.

14. Further revealed on being acknowledged of double Insurance, the subsequent policy issued by Universal Sompo General Insurance Co. Ltd. is unilaterally canceled without any information, intimation or deliverance and deduction of amount of Rs.471/- towards the period of 26.2.2015 to 10.3. 2015 is against the standing guidelines erected by IRDA.

15. The entire gamut of story evinced, Bank and the respective tie up Insurance players are in league defraud the customer in broad day light and the situation & circumstance compelled the complainant to ensure insurance elsewhere for immediate security indemnification.

16. On the contrary bank remain silent apprehending the manner of performance that leads to fault imperfection, shortcoming and standard which is required to be maintained under the provision of the term and the procedure has been ruthlessly divasted by the hand of the bank.

17. The further question arises that the bank failed to make insurance prior to the expiry. In addition even in late remittance did not deliver the result i.e. the issue of policy to the customer in time.

18. On the above context we prefer to place reliance on some decisions and IRDA guidelines in appreciation.

(i) Insurance Policy not delivered to Insured- Nonobservance of Regulation 2002- condition of          reasonable care in policy document, cannot be pressed into service by Insurance Company.

Oriental Insurance Company Versus Nirmal Thakur, 2010 (4) CLT 166 (HP).    

(ii) Insurance Company kept the proposal pending for 8 months without taking a decision regarding acceptance or otherwise - Insurer cannot take advantage of the action of its concerned officials in keeping the proposal pending for long time.

SBI Life Insurance Co. Ltd. VS Ashalata Parida & Anr, 2010 (4) CLT 382 (NC).

 

19. IRDA  Regulations 2002, sub Reg. 6 of Regulation 4- contemplates- (6) proposals shall be produced by the Insurer with speed and efficiency and all decision thereof shall be communicated by it in writing within a reasonable period not exceeding 15 days from receipt of proposals by the Insurer.

      Therefore, on the basis of foregoing discussion, we do not find fault at complainant’s end. The OPs are in negligence and con-jointly liable in view of their con-joint Insurance trade. The refund of amount to the bank in too belated stage, do not cure any illness, rather we hold the activity is connivance of each others end. Thus OPs are liable to pay for creating mental agonisation and harassment.

 

O  R  D  E  R

 The case is allowed on contest. The OP1, 2 &3 are jointly and severally liable to pay the petitioner a sum of Rs.11,633/- (Eleven  thousand six hundred thirty three) along with @6% per annum interest thereon till realization within 30 days of this order, failing in compliance will attract 9% interest per annum on the entire amount till payment.

 (ii) The OP1 is penalized for non-adhering to the call of the Forum being a public Institution and the participation of the proceeding is essential, so will pay the petitioner a sum of Rs.1000/- (One thousand) within the above time frame failing which will attract Rs.10/- per day penalty till realization.

(iii) Further non-observance of notice and willful non participation in proceeding will dealt accordingly.

(iv) No order as to cost.

 

Copy of the Order be made available to the parties as per rule.

File be consigned to record room.

Pronounced, 22^nd February 2017.          

                                                                                                                                                            

                   I agree                                                                            

             (Smt. B. Giri)                                                                                     (Shri Purushottam Samantara)

            Member (W)                                                                                                         President                    

         DCDRF, Keonjhar                                                                                             DCDRF, Keonjhar                                                   

          

                                                                                Dictated & Corrected by me

                                                                               (Shri Purushottam Samantara)

                                                                                         (President)

                                                                                   DCDRF, Keonjhar