BEFORE THE DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, MANGALORE
Dated this the 17th October 2016
PRESENT
SMT. C.V. SHOBHA : HONBLE PRESIDENT
SMT.LAVANYA M. RAI : HONBLE MEMBER
COMPLAINT NO. 317/2012
(Admitted on 16.10.2012)
Mr. Govinda Bhat.B,
S/o Achutha Bhat
Aged about 40 years,
R/o Doddathota House,
Amaramadnoor Village,
Sullia Taluk, D.K. District,
…….. COMPLAINANT
(Advocate for Complainant: Sri CNG)
VERSUS
1. The Manager,
Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance,
Company Limited,
1st Floor Thumbe Archede,
Palnir, Mangalore. Da.Ka.
2. The Manager,
A.R Insurance Brokers Pvt Ltd.,
An associates of Anandarathi,
Broker of Bajaj Allianz,
3rd Floor Paradigm Plaza,
Near R.T.O A.B Shetty Circle,
Pandeshwara 575001,
Mangalore.
……OPPOSITE PARTIES
(Advocate for opposite party No.1: Sri AKK)
(Advocate for opposite party No.2: Dropped)
ORDER DELIVERED BY HON’BLE PRESIDENT
SMT. C.V. SHOBHA
- 1. This complaint is filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act alleging deficiency in service as against the opposite parties claiming certain reliefs.
2. The complainant prays for the order for reliefs directing the opposite parties to withdrawal the three annual years premium amount paid in respect of insurance Policy worth Rs.30,000/ with interest of 12%, the expenses incurred Rs.5,000/- towards attempts made to enquiry about policy, the compensation amount Rs.20,000/ for the inconveniences, loss and mental agony, the cost of this proceedings and such other relief as the Forum deems fit.
II. The brief facts of the case are as under:
The complainant as a consumer under the opposite party No.1 and 2, on the ground that the opposite party No.1 is the insurance company and the opposite party No.2 is the broker of opposite party No.1. Hence the opposite party No.1 is also represents, the opposite party No.2, as it is the matter. That apart, the opposite party No’s registered and head office is at Mumbai and Pune of Maharashtra state. As such the complainant obtained valid insurance policy and the scheme of Allianz Bajaj UNITGAIN by policy No.0020998700, which commenced from 17.05.2006 and matured on 17.05.2039 against to sum assured Rs.50,000/. As per the conditions of the policy he is to pay annual premium of amount of Rs.10,000/ and opposite party are liable to provide all the benefits of the policy scheme. Accordingly policy was issued, and he regularly paid the said premium amount continuously for 3 years such as for the year 2006, 2007 and 2008 and also obtained valid cash receipts for all the years through opposite party No.2, being the broker of opposite party No.1. Later, even as per the terms and conditions the complainant made efforts for surrender the policy certificate and demand for withdraw the said full premium amount of the policy of a total sum of Rs.30,000/. For which through a letter to opposite party No.2 on dated 07.12.2010, demand was not considered. Even thereafter made several attempts it was refund by opposite party. Further, as per the terms and conditions, the complainant is at liberty to withdraw of the full policy premium account, after 03 full years, premium have been paid. On that ground itself, it was made his legal claim and demand, as he is entitled. For that reason one notice i.e. on 20.09.2012 also sent to opposite party No.1, despite no purpose served. Surprisingly the same of opposite party No.2, was returned as unserved, endorsed by the postal authority on the RPAD cover that, opposite party No.2, was left the address. That also the lookout of the opposite party No.1. On that ground the above complaint on 16.10.2012 raised before us.
On the date of filing the said complaint, the complainant also made an IA U/s 24A (2) of Consumer protection Act along with affidavit and pray for condonation of delay in filing the same, as found in the record.
On due notice sent by us to both the opposite parties, opposite party No.1 was contested the matter. But the opposite party No.2 notice was not served as left the address. Then on 01.01.2013, the complainant filed a memo and pray for drop, the opposite party from the case. Hence, it was allowed and permitted to do so. Thereafter the opposite party No.1 filed version through counsel but, to the IA for condone the delay, no objection is filed by opposite party No.1. Totally for the reasons stated above and considering the contents of the affidavit with consideration of the facts and circumstances including documents the annexed IA is hereby allowed in the interest of justice and condone the delay in filing the same. Then that on 19.02.2013 complainant (CW 1) filed evidence by way of affidavit and got marked the documents as Ex C1 to C9. And prays for its allow.
Among the same of pleading with documentary and oral evidence we come to a point of proving the aspect regarding materials required by the complainants. As such, the point regarding.
III. In view of the above said facts, the points now that arise for our consideration in this case are as under:
- Whether the complainant proves that there is a deficiency of service on the part of the Opposite Parties No. 1?
- If so, for what relief and from whom the complainant entitled?
- What order?
We have considered the notes/oral arguments submitted by the learned counsel and also considered the materials that was placed before this Forum and answer the points are as follows:.
Point No. (i): As per Affirmative
Point No. (ii): As per Affirmative
Point No. (iii): As per the final order.
REASONS
IV. POINTS No.1: On the basis of the facts and circumstances mentioned above as well as all the pleadings, oral and documentary
evidence with written arguments on either side, available in the case, which reveals that the important document as per Ex C1 to C3, dated 08.05.2006, 16.05.2007 and 24.04.2008, are clearly goes to show the complainant paid a regular premium of Rs.10,000/ on every year, for 3 years continuously and obtained the same from Ex C1 to C3 from opposite party No.2, broker of Mangalore. As per Ex C4 of opposite party No.2 reveals that the complainant obtained the policy as on 08.05.2006. As per the Ex C5 is the policy dated 17.05.2006, of opposite party No.1, where there is no any mention regarding any of the terms and conditions, much less not to withdrawal of the said premium amount by the complainant. But, as per Ex C6 of the opposite party No.1, original policy deposit renewal premium receipt vide Sl. No. 7246896, on its overleaf there is a clear mention under plan.
Highlits: provision for full withdrawals allowed after full 3 years premiums have been paid at bid value of the waits. Such being so, deliberately it was refused by opposite party No.1. This amounts to a pure violation of their own terms and conditions, to the complainant. For the same reason, as per Ex C7 dated 07.12.2010 he requested in writing allowing him for withdrawal in full, to opposite party No.2 broker. Later, as a last resort notice dated 20.09.2012 through Consumer s Forum, Sullia, D.K. (Balakedarara Hitarakshana Vedika) sent to both the opposite parties and the 2nd opposite parties RPAD cover as per C9 refused as party left the address. In such a situation it is clear that the act of the opposite party No.1 amounts to a pure violation, mainly in protecting the complainant as per the provision of Consumer Protection Act. Therefore there is a pure deficiency of service. That apart the transaction made by the opposite parties comes under the commercial trade practice, for doing the business in the market, in order to make gain and profit like so the innocent public like the complainant have been put under suffering and harassment and later leads to mental agony. Because, in the case in hand also as stated above with the document Ex C5 and C6 the terms and conditions have already been fulfilled by the complainant, to the time of his demand made for withdrawal of his full premium amount paid under Ex C1 to C3 for full 3 years. Such being so, it is clear consideration of the opposite party is unnecessarily causing loss and damage with a malafide intention, in order to obtain wrongful gain and for causing wrongful loss and damage to the complainant. For the reasons stated above as per our detail discussion, it is enough to conclude that the point No.1 is held in the affirmative.
POINTS No.2: For this reason the opposite party is bound to refund the said entire premium amount of Rs.30,000/ in full collected as per Ex C1 to C3 from the complainant. For the reasons stated above, the same was utilized by opposite party since from 2006 even today for its own business, and from the same it was earned profit. Hence, the opposite party is also liable to pay the interest at the rate of 10% p.a on the said full amount of Rs.30,000/ from 17.05.2009 (i.e. Completion of full 3 years) till realization. Further as stated above once when violation, deficiency of service and unfair trade practice aroused by the opposite party to the complainant till the day, the opposite party is also liable to pay the compensation of sum of Rs.10,000/- to the complainant as he is entitled. That apart the opposite party is also liable to pay another Rs.5,000/ towards cost and litigation expenses which incurred by him.
POINTS No.3: In the result, as per the Order below:
ORDER
The Complaint is allowed in part. The Opposite party is directed to pay/refund for a sum of Rs.30,000/ (Rupees Thirty thousand only) with accrued interest at the rate of 10% per annum from 17.05.2009 (i.e. completion of full 3 years) till realization. Further the opposite party is also liable to pay Rs.10,000/ (Rupees Ten thousand only) towards compensation and another sum of Rs.5,000/ (Rupees Five thousand only) towards cost and litigation expenses incurred by the complainant. Hence the payment shall be made within 30 days from the date of receipt of the copy of this order.
Copy of this order as per statutory requirements, be forwarded to the parties and therefore the file shall be consigned to record room.
(1 to 8 pages dictated to the Stenographer typed by her, revised and pronounced in the open court on this the 17th day of October 2016)
MEMBER PRESIDENT
(SMT. LAVANYA M. RAI) (SMT. C. V. SHOBHA)
D.K. District Consumer Forum D.K. District Consumer Forum
Mangalore. Mangalore.
ANNEXURE
Witnesses examined on behalf of the Complainant:
CW1: Mr. Govinda Bhat
Documents marked on behalf of the Complainant:
Ex.C1: Dated: 08.05.2006 The cash receipt of premium paid
Ex.C2: Dated: 16.05.2007 The cash receipt of premium paid
Ex.C3: Dated: 24.04.2008 The cash receipt of premium paid
Ex.C4: Dated: 08.05.2006 The letter of opposite party No.2
Ex.C5: Dated: 18.05.2006 The insurance policy contained 2 Pages
Ex.C6: Dated: 18.05.2007 The policy deposit renewal premium Receipt
Ex.C7: Dated: 07.12.2010 The letter of withdrawal
Ex.C8: Dated: 20.09.2012 The copy of notice
Ex.C9: Dated: Returned postal envelop with A.D
Witnesses examined on behalf of the Opposite Parties:
Rw1: Harish Prbhu, Branch Manager
Documents produced on behalf of the Opposite Parties:
Nil
Dated: 17.10.2016. PRESIDENT
