Delhi

StateCommission

CC/10/247

MEENAKSHI DAHIA - Complainant(s)

Versus

AXIS BANK LTD & ORS. - Opp.Party(s)

09 Mar 2016

ORDER

IN THE STATE COMMISSION: DELHI

(Constituted under Section 9 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986)

                                                                     

Date of Arguments: 09.03.2016

Date of Decision: 22.03.2016

 

Complaint Case No. 247/2010

 

In the matter of:

Meenakshi Dahiya

through her Father

Sh. Puran Singh Dahiya

S/o Late Sh. Chet Ram

R/o H.No. D-14/B

Gali No. 8, Dev-Kunj

Raj Nagar-II Palam Colony

New Delhi-110045                                       .........Complainant

 

Versus

 

1. Axis Bank Ltd.

through its Branch Manager

24-A, Palam Village

New Delhi

 

2. MET Life India Insurance Company Ltd.

(through Axis Bank Ltd. 24-A

Palam Village, New Delhi)

Regional Office-First Floor

Himalaya House 23

Kasturba Gandhi Marg

New Delhi-110001

 

Registered Office-

Brigade Shesha Mahal 5

Vani Vilas Road

Basavangudi

Banagalore-560004                                     ..........Opposite Parties         

                            

CORAM

 

O P GUPTA                              -                  MEMBER (JUDICIAL)

S C JAIN                                 -                  MEMBER

1.         Whether reporters of local newspaper be allowed to see the judgment? Yes

2.         To be referred to the reporter or not? Yes

 

 

 

O P GUPTA -  MEMBER (JUDICIAL)

 

JUDGEMENT

1.      The complaint is based on the allegations that on 14.10.2008 agent of Met Life India Insurance Co. Ltd./OP-2 approached the complainant through OP-1, induced her to purchase insurance Plan MET SUVIDHA with annualized single premium of Rs. 98,982/-. The sum assured was Rs. 7,44,000/- and policy No. 1200800696473. Customer ID-MEEN231019882A for 15 years and premium term for five years Policy effective from 22.10.2008. The complainant was pursuing a job in Paramount Airways Ltd. Chennai as cabin crew and getting salary of Rs. 3,50,000/- p.a. OP-2 received a premium of Rs. 99,000/- vide bank draft dated 14.10.2008 drawn on OP-1. On 14.10.2009, complainant went to the OP-1 for depositing premium for second year but OP-1 did not accept the same stating the policy had been cancelled.  OP-1 and OP-2 pressurized the complainant to sign an indemnity bond to return the premium amount with interest of Rs. 7519/- from 22.10.2008 to 25.01.2010 vide letter dated 02.02.2010. OP-2 also assured the complainant to grant compensation but did not pay a single penny. OPs refused to continue the policy. Thus OPs have fraudulently grabbed the hard earned money of the complainant. Complainant has claimed Rs. 45,00,000/- towards compensation for risk cover, mental agony and harassment alongwith deposited premium of Rs. 99,000/- with interest and expenditure of Rs. 50,000/-.
2.      OP-1 has filed written statement raising preliminary objection that it is referral agent/facilitator of OP-2 and actual insurance was issued by OP-2. There is no cause of action against it, complainant is not consumer qua it. Under Section 230 of Indian Contract Act that an agent can neither sue nor be sued except under special circumstances mentioned therein. On merits they have stated that there is no privity between OP-1 and complainant. OP-2 deposited the pay order with New Delhi Main Branch of OP-1 and the same was misplaced. OP-1 informed the same to OP-2 to arrange for an Indemnity Bond required to make duplicate pay order. OP-2 was not able to arrange the same from the complainant.
3.      OP-2 filed a separate written statement stating that there is neither any unfair trade practice nor any deficiency in service. The complainant does not fall within the definition of consumer dispute. Complainant has unnecessarily overvalued the complaint just to bring the same within the jurisdiction of this Commission. Draft deposited by her was Rs. 99,000/- only whereas the complainant has valued the complaint @ Rs. 46,49,000/-. Regulation 4 of the IRDA 2002 laid down that in all cases the risk covered by the policies by an insurer, the attachment of risk to an insurer will be in consonance with the terms of Section 64 VB of Insurance Act 1938 and except in the cases where the premium has been paid in cash, in all other cases the insurer shall be on risk only after the receipt of the premium of it. Similar provisions has been incorporated in terms and conditions of the policy availed by the complainant. The policy of the complainant was cancelled due to non-receipt of the payment under the demand draft submitted by her towards first premium, as soon as factum of demand draft being lost in transit came to its knowledge, OP-2 talked to the complainant over phone and requested her to make payment before cancellation of policy. Complainant did not care to make payment and hence it was constrained to cancel the policy on 22.12.2009.
4.      The complainant filed replication to the written statement of the OP-1 as well as to written statement of OP-2. The replication to the written statement of OP-1 was accompanied by the affidavit of the complainant.
5.      OP-2 filed its evidence by affidavit of Sh. Moti John Chief Manager. It also filed affidavit of Sh. Anil Deputy Director Legal.
6.      Complainant has filed written arguments. OP-1 filed written arguments. We have gone through the material on record and heard the arguments.
7.      It is an admitted fact that draft given by the complainant was lost in transit by OP-1. However, the fact remains that complainant has not suffered any loss except the amount of draft. No untoward incident happened to the complainant during the policy period. So claim for compensation for risk cover is baseless.
8.      If the complainant was not satisfied with the action of OP-2, she could have taken the life cover from other insurance company. She did not do so for the reason best known to her.
9.      Since OP-2 never received the amount of premium, question of its liability does not arise.
10.  As regards OP-1, Counsel for the OP-1 fairly stated that OP-1 is liable to return the amount alongwith reasonable interest. It is a matter of common knowledge that the rate of interest during the span from 2010 till date was around 8% to 9% p.a.
11.  The controversy remains regarding non-furnishing of indemnity bond by the complainant, as required by the OPs. We fail to appreciate as to what loss the complainant was going to suffer by furnishing the indemnity bond. Requirement of indemnity bond is usual practice by a payer to safeguard its interest to become operative only when someone else claims the amount and the payer is held responsible to refund the same to that 3^rd party.
12. In view of the above discussion OP-1 is directed to pay an amount of Rs. 99,000/- to the complainant alongwith interest @ 10% p.a. from the date of draft till the date of refund. OP-1 will also pay costs of Rs. 50,000/-.
13. Copy of the order be made available to both the parties free of cost.
14. File be consigned to Record Room.

(O P GUPTA)
MEBER (JUDICIAL)

 

 

(S C JAIN)
MEMBER