These two appeals have been filed against the order dated 22.03.2016 passed by the Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal, Commission (in short ‘the State Commission’) in Complaint no.247 of 2010. The First appeal No 792 of 2016 has been filed by the original complainant and the First Appeal no. 1073 of 2017 has been filed by the opposite party No.1 in the original complaint. 2. Briefs facts of the case are that the complainant Meenakshi Dahiya applied for an insurance policy namely Met Suvidha with annualised single premium of Rs.98,982/- and the validity of the policy was for 15 years from 22nd October 2008 till 21st October 2023. The sum assured was Rs.7,44,000/-. The complainant submitted a demand draft for Rs.99,000/- dated 14.10.2008 to the opposite party no.2 the insurance company drawn on OP no.1 Bank. OP no.2 submitted the demand draft for collection, however, the same was lost during transit at the end of the opposite party no.1 and, therefore, the premium could not be collected by OP no.2. It is the case of the complainant that when she went to deposit the 2nd premium next year, she was informed that the policy has been cancelled and she could not deposit the second premium. The case of the OP no.1 is that OP no.1 requested the complainant to submit an indemnity bond so that duplicate demand draft could be issued, however, the same was not submitted by the complainant. It is the case of the OP No.2 insurance company that they informed the complainant on phone that she has to submit the draft again otherwise the policy will be cancelled, however, no draft was submitted by the complainant and therefore, the policy was cancelled. Aggrieved by the acts of the OPs, the complainant filed a consumer complaint Nos.247 of 2010 before the State Commission claiming compensation of about Rs.46 lakh. The complaint was resisted by both the OPs by filing separate written statements. They reiterated their stand as stated in the brief facts above. The State Commission however, allowed the complaint and ordered that OP no.1 should pay Rs.99,000/- along with interest @ 10% per annum from the date of demand draft till actual payment. The State Commission also ordered that a compensation of Rs.50,000/- be paid to the complainant by the OP no.1- Bank. 3. Aggrieved by the order of the State Commission dated 22.03.2016, the complainant has filed first appeal no.792 of 2016 and the OP no.1- the Bank has also filed first appeal no.1073 of 2017 before this Commission. 4. Heard the learned counsel for both the parties and perused the record. Learned counsel for the complainant has stated that the complainant has filed appeal for enhancement of the compensation as she remained without insurance cover for about one year as her life was always at risk in her job with the Paramount Airways as a crew member. The whole purpose of taking the policy has been defected due to the deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party no.1 – Bank. Learned counsel stated that there is a delay of 41 days in filing the appeal and the same may be condoned on the ground mentioned in the application for condonation of delay. Learned counsel further stated that in the cross appeal filed by the bank, there is a delay of 355 days and the appeal filed by the bank is liable to be dismissed only on this count. 5. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the OP no.1 – Bank stated that the bank was always ready for issuing a second bank draft provided the complainant gave an indemnity bond but the complainant refused to submit the same and therefore, the second Bank draft could not be issued to the complainant. Thus, for the whole episode the complainant herself is responsible. She was well aware that the bank draft was lost and her policy would be cancelled but still she did not make any effort to get the bank draft issued and to get the policy in time so that she could not have remained without policy for about one year. It was stated that when the bank was already ready to re-issue the draft for Rs.99,000/- however, the same was not agreed to by the complainant as she did not give the indemnity bond, therefore, no interest should have been awarded on this amount by the State Commission as the delay in payment is only due to non-cooperation by the complainant. It was further argued by the learned counsel that the State Commission has wrongly awarded a compensation of Rs.50,000/- for which there is no justification and particularly when the interest has also been awarded on the amount of refund. The State Commission in its order has itself observed that the complainant has not suffered any loss except the amount of draft, therefore, the claim for compensation for risk cover was baseless, still the State Commission has allowed huge compensation of Rs.50,000/-. As per section 14 (1) (d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, the compensation can be allowed only when there is loss or injury suffered by the complainant. In the present case, the State Commission has itself observed that the complainant has not suffered any loss except for the amount of bank draft and therefore, no compensation could have been granted by the State Commission in the light of the provision of Section 14 (1) (d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. 6. The learned counsel for the OP no.2 – Insurance Company stated that the insurance company never received the premium and therefore, there was no question of continuing with the policy and hence, the policy was rightly cancelled. Accordingly, no liability to pay any amount can be fastened to OP no.2. Learned counsel for the opposite party No.1 further stated that there is a delay of 355 days in filing the present appeal and the delay may be condoned on the ground mentioned in the application for condonation of delay. The complainant’s appeal has also been filed with delay and therefore, the delay in filing both the appeals may be condoned and matter be decided on merits. 7. I have carefully considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and have examined the record. First of all, it is seen that both the appeals have been filed with delay. The complainant’s appeal has been filed with a delay of 41 days, whereas the appeal of opposite party No.1 has been filed with a delay of 355 days. As these are cross appeals, delay in filing the appeals is condoned subject to cost of Rs.10,000/- to be paid to the complainant by the opposite party No.1. 8. The OP no.1 has no objection in paying the amount of the draft which is Rs.99,000/- however, OP No.1 has objection to the interest and compensation awarded by the State Commission. Clearly, when an amount becomes due and is not paid, it attracts interest as observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Alok Shanker Pandey Vs. Union of India &Ors., II (2007) CPJ 3 (SC) as under:- “9. It may be mentioned that there is misconception about interest. Interest is not a penalty or punishment at all, but it is the normal accretion on capital. For example if A had to pay B a certain amount, say 10 years ago, but he offers that amount to him today, then he has pocketed the interest on the principal amount. Had A paid that amount to B 10 years ago, B would have invested that amount somewhere and earned interest thereon, but instead of that A has kept that amount with himself and earned interest on it for this period. Hence equity demands that A should not only pay back the principal amount but also the interest thereon to B.” 9. Relying upon the above judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, I do not find any merit in the assertion of the OP no.1 that the State Commission should not have granted interest. 10. Now coming to the question of compensation, it is seen that section 14 (1) (d ) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, allows the forum to award compensation for the loss suffered by the complainant due to negligence of the OP. In the present case, the State Commission has itself observed that the complainant has not suffered any loss except for the amount of the bank draft. The complainant herself did not deposit the indemnity bond as required by the opposite party Bank to reissue the draft, therefore, she cannot claim compensation for her own deficiency to some extent. It is also a fact that the complainant was well aware that her draft had been lost and hence the Insurance Company had cancelled the policy, therefore, the State Commission has rightly observed that the complainant cannot claim any compensation for non-coverage of risk for about one year as she did not have the policy. At the most, the complainant can be entitled to compensation for harassment and mental agony. In my view, a compensation of Rs.10,000/- (rupees ten thousand only) will be reasonable in the facts and circumstances of the case. 11. Based on the above discussion, the first appeal no. 1073 of 2017 is partly allowed and the order of the State Commission is modified to the extent that the OP no.1 shall be liable to pay a compensation of Rs.10,000/- (rupees ten thousand only) instead of Rs.50,000/- as awarded by the State Commission. Rest of the order of the State Commission is confirmed. The bank shall also pay a cost of Rs.10,000/- (rupees ten thousand only) for condoning the delay in filing the appeal to the complainant. 12. First appeal no. 792 of 2016 has been filed by the complainant for enhancement of the compensation. In the light of the order of reduction in compensation in FA no.1073 of 2017, I do not find any force in the FA no.792 of 2016 filed by the complainant and accordingly, FA no. 792 of 2016 is liable to be dismissed. 13. In the light of the above discussion, I find no merit in FA no.792 of 2016 and the same is dismissed. However, FA no.1073 of 2017 is partly allowed and the order of the State Commission is modified to the extent that compensation of Rs.10,000/- (rupees ten thousand only) will be paid by OP no.1 to the complainant instead of Rs.50,000/- as awarded by the State Commission. Rest of the order of the State Commission is confirmed. The opposite party No.1 bank shall also pay a cost of Rs.10,000/- (rupees ten thousand only) to the complainant. The order of the State Commission as modified by this order alongwith the cost be complied with by the OP No.1 within a period of 45 days. |
