Haryana

Ambala

CC/426/2017

Manoj Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

Axis Bank - Opp.Party(s)

10 Sep 2019

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AMBALA.

 

                                                          Complaint Case No.: 426 of 2017.

                                                          Date of Institution   : 01.12.2017.

                                                          Date of decision   :  10.09.2019.

 

Manoj Kumar son of Shri Brij Pal Singh, r/o H.No.831, Kheda Sahajadpur, Naraingarh, District Ambala.

                                                                             ……. Complainant.

                                                  Versus

 

1. Axis Bank, Magharpura, Tehsil Naraingarh, Distt. Ambala.
2. Max Life Insurance Co. Ltd., Plot No.90-A, Sector-18, Gurugram-122015 (Haryana).

           ..…..Opposite Parties.

         

Before:        Smt. Neena Sandhu, President.

                   Smt. Ruby Sharma, Member.

Shri Vinod Kumar Sharma, Member.                 

                                                

Present:       Shri D.S. Mathur, Advocate, counsel for the complainant.

Shri Amar Singh, Advocate, counsel for the OP No.1.

Shri Sandeep Kashyap, Advocate, counsel for the OP No.2. 

 

Order:        Smt. Neena Sandhu, President

Complainant has filed this complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) against the Opposite Parties (hereinafter referred to as ‘OPs’) praying for issuance of following directions to them:-

1. To refund total amount of Rs.49,124.46 (Rs.12304 + Rs.4179.70 + Rs.6640+ Rs.26000.76) alongwith interest @12 p.a.
2. To pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation alongwith litigation expenses.
382.  

Any other relief which this Hon’ble Forum may deem fit.

 

Brief facts of the case are that the complainant is an agriculturist and had taken a loan under KCC scheme from the OP No.1, having Account No.916030039422368 w.e.f. 13.07.2016. While advancing the loan, the OP No.1 without informing him, had purchased an insurance policy from the OP No.2 in his name. After taking the loan, the complainant came to know that the OP No.1 is claiming more money than the loan advanced by it, consequently, after depositing the entire loan amount, he closed his account with the OP No.1. At that time, he came to know that the OP No.1 had purchased a “Max Life Insurance Policy” in his name without his consent by debiting Rs.26,000/- as premium for the said policy. He never received any policy document from the OP No.1 or OP No.2. Thereafter, he issued a legal notice dated 18.08.2017 to OP No.1, which was duly received and acknowledged by it through its counsel on 14.09.2017. Furthermore, the OP No.1, in violation of the instructions of RBI, had illegally debited Rs.12,304/- i.e. Rs.6900/- as processing charges, Rs.2695/- as legal charges and Rs.2709/- without any reason, from the loan account. It has also debited Rs.4169.70 and Rs.6640/- for closing the account of the complainant. In this way, the OP No.1 had illegally charged Rs.49,124.46 (Rs.12304 + 4179.70 + 6640 + 26000). By charging Rs.49,124.46 illegally, the OPs have committed deficiency in service. Hence, the present complaint.

2.                Upon notice, OP No.1 appeared through counsel and filed written version and raised preliminary objections regarding maintainability and jurisdiction. On merits, it is stated that the OP No.1 is a schedule commercial bank and a corporate agent/facilitator of OP No.2. The role of OP No.1 is only of the facilitator for the OP No.2 and has no further role in this manner. If the complainant had any dispute about cancellation of the insurance policy, then he should have filed the complaint only against the OP No.2 which had issued the policy, without involving the OP No.1. It is unnecessarily being dragged into litigation. It is settled principal of law under Section 230 of the Indian Contract Act that an agent can neither sue and nor be sued except under the special circumstances mentioned therein. The OP No.1 has not committed any deficiency in service, thus the complaint filed against it, deserves dismissal with costs.

                   Upon notice, OP No.2 appeared through counsel and filed written version. However, when the case was fixed for arguments, the OP No.2 filed an application for amendment of the written version and the same was allowed by the Hon’ble Forum vide its order dated 13.06.2019. Accordingly, the OP No.2 filed the amended written version raising preliminary objections regarding maintainability; jurisdiction; locus-standi; cause of action and concealment of true & material facts. On merits, it is stated that in fact the complainant is a high school passed/well qualified person and submitted proposal form supported with his signed declaration on 14.07.2016 to OP No.2. It was verified by the complainant that all the information given in the proposal form is true and correct as per his knowledge and nothing false has been disclosed in it. After receipt of proposal form, the insurance policy No.265952671 was issued on 17.07.2016 by OP No.2 to the complainant, which was received by him on 25.07.2016 through registered post. The Welcome call was made to the insured by the concerned officials of the company and at that time, the positive response was given by the insured and no objection of any has been raised at that time. The free look period of 15 days was given to the policy holder. After receipt of the policy, the complainant had not raised any kind of objection regarding the terms & conditions of the policy during the free look period. Hence, the policy came into force after free look period and risk cover was started. The next premium was due as on 13.07.2017, but the insured failed to pay the same, then the OP No.2 had wrote ECS bounce letters and also sent the intimation regarding lapse of the policy to the insured, but inspite of receipt of all these letters, the complainant did not pay the due premium. As a result thereof, the policy of the complainant was lapsed due to non payment of premium. As per terms & conditions of the policy, the revival period of the lapse policy was two years from the date of 1^st unpaid premium, but inspite of that, the insured failed to revive the policy. The OP No.2 has not committed any deficiency in service, thus the complaint filed against it, deserves dismissal with costs.

3.                The learned counsel for the complainant tendered affidavit of complainant as Annexure CA alongwith documents as Annexure C-1 to C-3 and closed the evidence on behalf of complainant. On the other hand, learned counsel for OP No.1 tendered documents as Annexure OP1/1 to OP1/8 and closed the evidence on behalf of OP No.1. The learned counsel for OP No.2 tendered documents as Annexure OP2/1 to OP2/8 and closed the evidence on behalf of OP No.2.

4.                We have heard the learned counsel for parties and carefully gone through the case file.   

5.                The learned counsel for the complainant has argued that while granting loan to the complainant, the bank has levied various charges in violation of instructions of the Reserve Bank of India and also charged the foreclosures charges at the time of closing the account. Not only this, the OP No.1 without the consent of the complainant, had purchased the insurance policy on his name from the OP No.2 and had deducted the premium amount from his loan account, as such, the complainant is entitled for refund of the entire amount, illegally deducted from his loan account.

                   On the contrary, the learned counsel for the OP No.1 has vehemently argued that the OP No.1 had levied all the charges as per the banking norms. The complainant himself opted to purchase the insurance policy from the OP No.2 and it has no role in this regard. No deficiency in service has been committed by the OP No.1 and prayer has been made for dismissal of the complaint against it with costs.

                   The learned counsel for the OP No.2 has argued that the policy in question was issued to the complainant on receipt of duly filled in and signed proposal form from him, as such, there is no deficiency in service on its part and the complaint filed against it, may be dismissed with costs.  

6.                Admittedly, the OP No.1 had sanctioned the loan to the complainant vide Sanction Letter dated 27.06.2016 (Annexure OP1/1). In Condition No.4 of the terms & conditions which is duly signed by the complainant (Annexure OP1/2), it is categorically mentioned that “All legal documentation charges, inspection charges, valuation charges and other incidental expenses will be borne by the borrower at the actual”. Thus, as per the said Condition No.4 of the terms & conditions, all the charges were to be borne by the complainant. Nothing contrary has been placed on record by the complainant to show that the bank, at the time of grant of the loan or closure of the said loan account, had levied the charges in violation of the instructions of the RBI, thus this contention of the complainant is devoid of merits, hence rejected. Even we do not find any force in this contention of the complainant that the OPs have issued the policy in question without his consent, because the policy in question has been issued by the OP No.2 on the basis of the Proposal Form (Annexure OP2/1), which is duly filled in and signed by the complainant.

7.                With these facts & circumstances, we are of the considered view that the complainant has failed to prove his case. The complaint filed by the complainant is devoid of merits, consequently, we dismiss the same. The parties are left to bear their own costs. Certified copies of this order be supplied to the parties concerned, forthwith, free of cost as permissible under Rules. File be indexed and consigned to the Record Room.

Announced on: 10.09.2019.

 

 

 

          (Vinod Kumar Sharma)       (Ruby Sharma)                  (Neena Sandhu)

              Member                            Member                            President