D.O.F. 01.12.2011
D.O.O. 27.02.2012
IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM KANNUR
Present: Sri. K.Gopalan : President
Smt. K.P.Preethakumari : Member
Smt. M.D.Jessy : Member
Dated this the 27th day of February, 2012.
C.C.No.360/2011
Vineetha C.R.,
‘Sargam’,
Edayannur, : Complainant
P.O. Edayannur,
Kannur – 670 595
1. Aviva Life Insurance Company ,
Aashirvad Towers, Plot No.2,
3rd Floor, Kodambakkam High Road,
Nunkanbakkam, Chennai – 600 034.
2. Manager,
Aviva Life Insurance Company,
Grand Plaza Complex, : Opposite Parties
Fort Road, Kannur-1.
3. Gireeshkumar K.,
S/o. Balakrishnan Nambiar,
Rajina Nivas, Pariyaram,
P.O. Pariyaram, Mattannur (Via),
Kannur – 670 702.
O R D E R
Smt. K.P. Preethakumari, Member
This is a complaint filed under Section 12 of Consumer Protection
Act for an order directing the opposite parties to pay ` 90,000 as insurance amount with ` 50,000 as compensation.
The complainant has deposited ` 50,000 to the Sachin Centuary Plan of Aviva Insurance Company on 01.10.2008 as per the representation made by 3rd opposite party. At the time of depositing the amount, the opposite parties made believe the complainant that she will get ` 90,000 along with profit after expiry of three years and after one month the complainant has received policy having No. SCC 2163509 of Sachin Century Plan dated 03.10.10. After a lapse of one year, 3rd opposite party informed the complainant that the value of deposited amount increased to ` 60,000. The complainant approached the opposite party for the deposited amount since she was in need of money. At that time 2nd opposite party informed the complainant that it will be matured only on 03.10.11 and can be returned only after this date and informed that she will get ` 90,000. So the complainant on 05.10.11, approached the opposite parties with documents and they received the documents. But surprisingly on the next day the opposite parties informed the complainant through phone that she is entitled to get only `1650, because she was failed to deposit ` 50,000 each for the three subsequent years. But at any point of time the opposite parties have not informed the complainant that she was liable to pay ` 50,000 each for the subsequent three years. This act of the opposite parties are to evade from the responsibility of paying the entitled amount of ` 90,000 which amounts to deficiency of service and unfair practice on the part of opposite parties and because of this the complainant has suffered so much of mental, physical and financial hardships. Hence this complaint.
The Forum issued proper notice to all opposite parties but the 1st and 2nd opposite parties received notice and 3rd opposite party refused the notice and they are absent before the Forum and hence they were called absent and set exparty.
The main points to be decided in the above case is that whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties.
The evidence in the above case consists of the chief affidavit filed by the complainant in lieu of chief examination and Ext.A1. The complainant has filed chief affidavit in tune with her pleadings. She contended that as induced by the representation made by the 3rd opposite party she has deposited ` 50,000 and issued Ext.A1 by 1st and 2nd opposite party. According to complainant the opposite parties made representations to her that she has to deposit only ` 50,000 and after three years she will get ` 90,000. But the opposite parties remains absent and they set exparty eventhough they have received notice. So there is no representation before the Forum on behalf of opposite parties. This itself is deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties. So we are not in a position to ascertain what are the things made understand to the complainant by opposite parties. It is true that policy and its conditions are issued to complainant. But these document is using complex words and sentences and it seems to be for not understanding a common man like complainant. But there is no evidence before us to show that opposite parties have explained this to the complainant. Moreover there is no evidence before us to show that the opposite parties have issued notice to the complainant to inform her about due date of 2nd premium. She was under the impression that the amount was deposited before opposite party as a deposit. So it is the bounden duty of the opposite parties to explain to the complainant about the conditions of policy and to issue a notice with respect to due date. So there is no documents or evidence before us to prove this. Hence we are of the opinion that there is deficiency of service and unfair practice on the part of 1st and 2nd opposite parties. Since 3rd opposite party is only an agent, and admittedly the amount was deposited with 1st and 2nd opposite party, 3rd opposite party is exonerated from the liability. It is admitted that the amount of `50,000 was with the opposite party from 03.10.08. So the 1st and 2nd opposite parties are liable to release the above said amount of `50,000 to the complainant. The complainant is also entitled to get 9% interest from the above said amount from 03.10.08 till realization with `500 as cost of the proceedings and the complainant is entitled to receive the same and order passed accordingly.
In the result the complaint is allowed directing the 1st and 2nd opposite party to refund the amount of ` 50,000 (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) along with 9% interest from 03.10.08 till realization with ` 500 (Rupees Five Hundred only) as cost of the proceedings within 30 days from the date of receipt of the order, otherwise the complainant can execute the order as per the provisions of Consumer Protection Act.
Sd/- Sd/-
President Member
APPENDIX
Exhibits for the Complainant
A1. Aviva Life Insurance Policy document.
Exhibits for the opposite party
Nil
Witness examined for the complainant
Nil
Witness examined for opposite party
Nil
/forwarded by order/
SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT
