THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AMRITSAR
Consumer Complaint No. 641 of 2014
Date of Institution : 5.12.2014
Date of Decision : 02.07.2015
Gurwinder Singh S/o Mohan Singh R/o Village Butari P.O. Khalchian,Tehsil Baba Bakala District Amritsar
...Complainant
Vs.
Aviva Life Insurance Co.Ltd., SCO 32, 3rd Floor, Pal Plaza, District Shopping Complex, Ranjit Avenue, B-Block,Amritsar
Punjab & Sind Bank, Branch Khalchian,Tehsil Baba Bakala District Amritsar through its branch manager
....Opp.parties
Complaint under section 12/13 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986
Present : For the complainant : Sh. Kuljit Singh,Advocate
For the opposite party No.1 : Sh. S.K.Vyas,Advocate
For opposite party No.2 : Sh.B.S.Gill,Advocate
Quorum : Sh. Bhupinder Singh, President ,Ms. Kulwant Bajwa,Member & Sh.Anoop Sharma,Member
Order dictated by :-
-2-
Bhupinder Singh, President
1 Present complaint has been filed by Gurwinder Singh under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act alleging therein that he visited Punjab & Sind Bank in January 2009 to get a fixed deposit of Rs. 50000/- where Parampreet Singh ,Sales Manager told the complainant that he should get invested his money in fixed deposit of value of Rs. 50000/- for 3 consecutive years in which he can get an interest upto 13% p.a and the complainant paid 3 installments of Rs. 1,50,000/- to Parampreet Singh, representative of opposite party No.1. But the complainant did not receive the policy. The complainant approached the opposite party No.1 to refund the amount of Rs. 1,50,000/- alongwith 13% p.a interest. But opposite party No.1 paid only Rs. 1,50,000/- but no interest have been paid so far. The complainant approached opposite party No.1 many times to get interest . But to no avail. Alleging the same to be deficiency in service complaint was filed seeking directions to the opposite party to pay interest @ 13% from the date of receiving the abovesaid amount of Rs. 1,50,000/-. Compensation of Rs. 25000/- alongwith litigation expenses were also demanded.
2. Opposite party No.1 in its written version has submitted that on the basis of proposal form submitted by the complainant , insurance policy was issued to the complainant and the complainant paid the premium for 3 consecutive years. On the request of the complainant, the complainant vide letter dated 12.11.2012 was duly
-3-
informed that the opposite party has decided to refund the premium and the entire premium amount of Rs. 1,50,000/- was refunded to the complainant. It was denied that the amount invested by the complainant with the opposite party was a fixed deposit and it is a purely insurance company govered under the rules and regulations of IRDA. As such opposite party is not liable to pay any interest @ 13% p.a as claimed . While denying and controverting other allegations, dismissal of complaint was prayed.
3. Opposite party No.2 in its written version has submitted that replying opposite partry has unnecessarily been impleaded as party to the present complaint and the complaint is liable to be dismissed qua opposite party No.2 It was denied that in Jan 2009 complainant visited opposite party No.2 bank to get fixed deposit of Rs. 50000/-. Opposite party No.2 has no knowledge about he terms and conditions allegedly settled between the complainant and representative of opposite party No.1. Opposite party No.2 is carrying on banking business whereas opposite party No.1 is engaged in the business of insurance. Opposite party No.2 has no knowledge about the alleged installments paid by the complainant to opposite party No.1.
4. Complainant tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex.C-1, copy of letter dated 17.8.2012 Ex.C-2, copy of cheque Ex.C-3.
5. Opposite party No.1 tendered affidavit of Sh.Bhuwan Bhashkar Ex.OP1/1
-4-
alongwith documents Ex.OP1/2 to Ex.OP1/38.
6. Opposite party No.2 tendered affidavit of Ms.Manju Bala, branch manager Ex.Op2/1, copy of general power of attorney Ex.OP2/2.
7. We have carefully gone through the pleadings of the parties, arguments advanced by the ld.counsel for the parties and have appreciated the evidence produced on record by the parties with the valuable assistance of the ld.counsel for the parties.
8. From the record i.e. pleadings of the parties and the evidence produced on record by both the parties , it is clear that complainant had saving bank account with opposite party No.2. The complainant alleges that he wants to get FDR of Rs. 50000/-. But one Parampreet singh,Sales Manager of opposite party No.1 Insurance company told the complainant that the complainant should invest his money by depositing the premium of Rs. 50000/- for three consecutive years and he would get interest @ 13% p.a . The complainant paid three installments of Rs. 50000/- under insurance policy issued by opposite party No.1. Thereafter the complainant approached opposite party No.1 to refund his amount alongwith interest but the opposite party paid Rs. 1,50,000/- only to the complainant vide cheque dated 19.12.2012 but no interest was paid by the opposite party despite so many requests made by the complainant. Ld.counsel for the complainant submitted that all this amounts to deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties.
-5-
9. Whereas the case of the opposite party is that in order to obtain insurance policy complainant filled in the documents i.e. proposal form , illustration, declaration etc. Resultantly opposite party issued policy bearing No.ALS2305407 namely Life Saver Plus Policy with annual premium of Rs. 50000/-. the policy was sent to the complainant vide thanks letter dated 24.8.2012 Ex.OP1/12 in which it was categorically mentioned that it is unit linked product. The complainant paid three annual premiums of Rs. 50000/- . Thereafter complainant requested the opposite party for the refund of the amount of premium paid by the complainant. The opposite party refunded the amount of Rs. 1,50,000/- to the complainant though the complainant was not entitled to refund of the entire amount of premium because the opposite party had covered life risk of the complainant for continuous three years . But as a special case, the opposite party paid Rs. 1,50,000/- to the complainant and this fact has been admitted by the complainant. Ld.counsel for the opposite party submitted that there is no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party qua the complainant. Apart from this the policy in question is a unit linked policy as such the present complaint is no maintainable in the Consumer Forum.
10. From the entire above discussion, we have come to the conclusion that complainant obtained insurance policy bearing No. ALS230407 from the opposite party with premium of Rs. 50000/- yearly. The complainant paid three premiums of
-6-
Rs. 50000/- each. Thereafter complainant approached the opposite party for the refund of the amount. Resultantly the opposite party paid the fund value of the policy to the tune of Rs. 1,50,000/- to the complainant and this fact has been admitted by the complainant in his complaint para 4. Now the complainant is demanding interest on the aforesaid amount from the opposite party. Opposite party is not liable to pay any interest under the Insurance policy to the insured. Further the opposite party has covered the life risk of the complainant for continuous three years. As such we are of the opinion that the opposite party was justified in giving refund of Rs. 1,50,000/- to the complainant even after covering the risk of the complainant for three years.
11 Resultantly we hold that there is no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party qua the complainant. Hence, the complaint is without merit and the same is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs. Copies of the order be furnished to the parties free of costs. File is ordered to be consigned to the record room. Case could not be disposed of within the stipulated period due to heavy pendency of the cases in this Forum.
2.07.2015 ( Bhupinder Singh )
President
( Kulwant Kaur Bajwa) (Anoop Sharma)
/R/ Member Member
