Haryana

Sonipat

CC/194/2015

Jitender Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

1. The Manager Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Co. LTd. - Opp.Party(s)

Anil Kumar

01 Dec 2015

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

SONEPAT.

               

                                Complaint No.194 of 2015

                                Instituted on:09.06.2015

                                Date of order:01.12.2015

 

Jatinder Kumar Adv. son of Shri Hari Singh r/o H.No.159/26, Arya Nagar, Sonepat.                          ...Complainant.

                           Versus

1.The Manager, Bajaj Allianz Life Ins. Co.Ltd. GE plaza, Airport Ropad, Yarwa, Pune, Maharashtra.

2.The Manager, Bajaj Allianz Life Ins. Co.Ltd. 2^nd Floor, Pawan Mega Mall in front of HDFC Bank, Subhash Chowk, Atlas road, Sonepat.

3.The Manager, Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Ltd., SCO 226, Ist and IInd Fllor Sector 12, Karnal.

                                            ...Respondents.

COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 12 OF

THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986

Argued by: Ms. Suman Adv. for complainant.

           Shri Jai Kanwar Adv. for respondents.

BEFORE-    NAGENDER SINGH………………………………………………PRESIDENT.

     SMT.PRABHA WATI……………………………………………MEMBER.

          D.V.RATHI……………………………………………………………MEMBER.

O R D E R

            The complainant has filed the present complaint against the respondents that on 11.1.2008 he has purchased one insurance policy of Rs.1,25,000/- from the respondent no.1 and 2 on the terms and conditions mentioned under the said policy Bajaj Alianz  “under product century plus” on payment of Rs.25,000/- as installment premium w.e.f. 18.1.2008 to 18.1.2008.  The policy certificate 0082987640 dated 18.1.2008 was sent by the respondent to the complainant.  After minutely going through the terms and conditions, the complainant disagreed with the said policy and cancelled the same as the same was issued to the complainant by keeping him in the dark.  The complainant wrote a letter to the respondent for refund of the amount and the respondent has sent a cheque bearing no.312878 dated 23.12.2013 for Rs.19,992/- instead of Rs.25000/-. The respondents have sent the cheque very late and it was received by the complainant on 28.6.2014.  The complainant when presented it before the bank, it was dishonoured.  The complainant has served the respondent with legal notice, but of no use and it has caused unnecessary mental agony and harassment to the complainant. So, he has come to this Forum and has filed the present complaint.

2.        In reply, the respondents have submitted that in accordance with the terms and conditions of the policy and the permissible surrender value,  amount of  Rs.19,992/- was paid to the complainant vide cheque no.312878 dated 23.1.2013 which was dispatched to the complainant vide speed post dated 5.2.2013 admittedly received by him.    Thus, the complaint is without any merit and has been filed just to harass the respondents. The respondents have denied the fact that the cheque was sent on 28.6.2013 rather the same was sent to the complainant on 5.2.2013 but the complainant did not present the cheque for the reasons best known to the complainant and he has cooked up a false story to cover up his own lapses.  So, the complainant is not entitled for any relief and compensation and thus, prayed for the dismissal of the present complaint.

3.        We have heard the arguments of  ld. Counsel for both the parties at length and we have also gone through the entire relevant material available on the case file carefully & minutely.

4.        Ld. Counsel for the complainant has submitted that the cheque in dispute was sent to the complainant very late and when it was presented by the complainant before his banker, it was dishonoured.

          Ld. Counsel for the respondents has submitted that in accordance with the terms and conditions of the policy and the permissible surrender value,  amount of  Rs.19,992/- was paid to the complainant vide cheque no.312878 dated 23.1.2013 which was dispatched to the complainant vide speed post dated 5.2.2013 admittedly received by him.    Thus, the complaint is without any merit and has been filed just to harass the respondents. The respondents have denied the fact that the cheque was sent on 28.6.2013 rather the same was sent to the complainant on 5.2.2013 but the complainant did not present the cheque for the reasons best known to the complainant and he has cooked up a false story to cover up his own lapses.  So, the complainant is not entitled for any relief and compensation.

          In the present case, one thing is clear that the cheque bearing no.312878 dated 23.1.2013 for Rs.19,992/- was not encashed by the complainant.  In our view, the ends of justice would be fully met if the directions are given to the respondents to make the payment of Rs.25000/-(Rs.twenty five thousand) to the complainant.  Accordingly, we hereby direct the respondents to make the payment of Rs.25000/- (Rs.twenty five thousand) to the complainant alongwith interest at the rate of six percent per annum from the date of its deposit till realization.   The present complaint stands allowed accordingly.

          Certified copy of this order be provided to both the parties free of costs.

File be consigned to the record-room.

 

(Prabha Wati)        (DV Rathi)                 (Nagender Singh-President)

Member DCDRF        Member DCDRF                   DCDRF, Sonepat.

 

Announced:01.12.2015