DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BATHINDA.<br /> CC.No.395 of 11.12.2009<br /> Decided on 13.05.2010<br /> <br /> Swaran Kanta w/o Sh. Baldev Singh, resident of House No.20827, Street No.23-B, Ajit Road, Bathinda, Tehsil & Distt. Bathinda.<br /> ........Complainant<br /> Versus<br /> 1. Aviva Life Insurance, through its Managing Director, Aviva Tower, Sector Road, Opp. Golf Course, DLF, Phase-V, Sector 43, Gurgaon.<br /> 2. Aviva Life Insurance, through its Branch Manager, Mall Road, Bathinda, Tehsil & Distt. Bathinda.<br /> 3. M/s. Aviva Life Insurance Company India Ltd., having its Regd. Office at 2nd Floor, Prakashdeep Building, 7 Tolstoy Marg, New Delhi.<br /> .......Opposite parties<br /> <br /> Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.<br /> <br /> QUORUM<br /> <br /> Smt. Vikramjit Kaur Soni, President.<br /> Dr. Phulinder Preet, Member<br /> Sh. Amarjeet Paul, Member.<br /> <br /> Present:- <br /> For the Complainant : Sh. Vinod Goyal, counsel for the complainant.<br /> For Opposite parties : Sh. Sanjay Goyal, counsel for opposite parties.<br /> <br /> ORDER<br /> <br /> VIKRAMJIT KAUR SONI, PRESIDENT:-<br /> <br /> 1. In brief, the complainant's case is that he purchased Aviva Life Insurance Policy No. APG-1937202 from opposite party No.2 on behalf of opposite party No.1 which was received by her on 31.03.2008. She also deposited the 2nd installment on due date. The complainant received a letter dated 15.04.2009 from opposite party No.1 showing total fund value of Rs.1,66,320/- only against deposited amount of Rs.2 Lac. The complainant served a legal notice to the opposite parties. In reply to this legal notice the opposite party No.3 in its reply dated 06.10.2009 agreed to cancel the aforesaid policy and return the entire premium amount refund. The opposite parties refund the policy amount to the tune of Rs.2 Lacs on 03.11.2009. The complainant received that amount under protest. The complainant has pleaded that the opposite parties be directed to pay interest on amount of Rs.2 lacs and to pay compensation to the tune of Rs.5 lacs alongwith Rs.10,000/- as cost of litigation expenses.<br /> 2. The opposite parties pleaded that the complainant submitted a letter dated 27.03.2008 requesting the company to change her Fund option under the policy. On the basis of the Proposal Form and the declaration made there under, the opposite party issued the Pension Plus Unit Linked Policy to the complainant. The opposite party in order to settle the dispute and as a goodwill gesture refunded the entire premium amount to the complainant on 03.11.2009. So there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties and complaint is liable to be dismissed.<br /> 3. Parties have led their evidence besides filing affidavits in support of their respective pleadings. <br /> 4. Arguments heard and record perused. The complainant purchased Aviva Life Insurance Policy No. APG-1937202 from opposite party No.2 on behalf of opposite party No.1 which was received by her on 31.03.2008. The complainant submitted the Forms filled with Fund allocation as 50% secured and 50% as growth funds dated 24.03.2008. After payment of Ist installment she received a policy. The 2nd installment was deposited in March, 2009 which was paid on due date. The complainant received a letter dated 15.04.2009 from opposite party No.1 showing total fund value of Rs.1,66,320/- only against deposited amount of Rs.2 Lac. The complainant alleged that she has never submitted a consent letter under her signatures. The complainant served a legal notice to the opposite parties. In reply to this legal notice the opposite party No.3 in its reply dated 06.10.2009 agreed to cancel the aforesaid policy and return the entire premium amount refund and advised the complainant to invest the said amount into Protector Fund Option. The opposite parties refund the policy amount to the tune of Rs.2 Lacs in the shape of cheque No. 954236 dated 03.11.2009. The complainant received that under protest.<br /> 5. The opposite parties contended that the complainant submitted a letter dated 27.03.2008 requesting the company to change her Fund option under the policy. On the basis of the Proposal Form and the declaration made there under, the opposite party issued the Pension Plus Unit Linked Policy bearing number APG1937202 to the complainant. The opposite party in order to settle the dispute and as a goodwill gesture refunded the entire premium amount to the complainant vide letter dated 03.11.2009. The complainant was also informed vide this letter that “The encashment of the enclosed cheque signifies full and final settlement of your claim in respect of the captioned policy absolving Aviva Life Insurance of all liability.” They further pleaded that as per the terms and conditions of the policy the opposite party was not bound to cancel the policy but the opposite party being a customer centric Company cancelled the policy.<br /> 6. From the above discussion this Forum concludes that the opposite parties have paid full amount of Rs.2 Lacs which was received by the complainant under protest. The opposite parties paid Rs.2 Lacs without deducting any charges and has also covered risk during that period. The payment was also done before filing of this complaint in the absence of principle, no interest amount can be paid. Their claim of interest not sustainable. A claim of interest under the Consumer Protection Act is not maintainable as in absence of principle relief i.e. payment of the Sum Assured. The prayer of the complainant is only with regard to payment of interest on the principle amount is not maintainable. The support can be sought by the precedent laid down in case titled “Chintaman Kar Vs. L.I.C. of India and others 2003 (1) CPC 440 at page No.442 (State Commission) (DB).” <br /> 7. Therefore what has been discussed above this complaint fails as the complainant has got the principle amount which he has deposited already in lieu of this policy. In the absence of principle amount the suit for interest only is not maintainable, hence failed to prove any deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties. Therefore this complaint is dismissed without any order as to cost.<br /> 8. A copy of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost and file be consigned for record.<br /> <br /> <br /> Pronounced (Vikramjit Kaur Soni)<br /> 13.05.2010 President<br /> <br /> <br /> (Dr. Phulinder Preet)<br /> Member<br /> <br /> <br /> (Amarjeet Paul)<br /> Member <br />