D.O.F. 01.11.2010

                                            D.O.O. 29.03.2011

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 29^th day of March,  2012.

C.C.No.254/2010

Sabil Moosakutty,

S/o. Moosakuty,

‘Shamas’, Powerloom metta,                                 :         Complainant

P.O. Mambaram, Kannur

(Rep. by Adv. Vimala Kumari)

1. Bajaj Alliance Life Insurance Co. Ltd.,

    GE Plaza, Airport Road,

    Pune – 411 006

    Branch office at Kannur, 2^nd Floor,

    Peekey Commercial Complex,

    Muneeswaran Kovil Road, Near Sub Way,        :         Opposite Party

    Kannur – 670 007.

(Rep. by Adv. M. Govindankutty)

2. Vikas Babu,    

    Door No.7/55,

    P.O. Dharmadam,

    Thalassery.  

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 release the deposited amount of ` 75,000 with 12% interest and other benefit with ` 20,000 as compensation.

          The brief contentions of the complainant is that as induced by 2^nd opposite party he had deposited an amount of ` 25,000 each on 18.03.2007, 28.03.2008 and 12.05.2009 with opposite party.  The opposite party offered high dividend and interest over the deposit amount.  It was specifically stated to the complainant that there was no maturity date fixed and hence the complainant can withdraw as and when the complainant wishes and hence he had deposited ` 75,000 on

three occasions.  But subsequently while the complainant approached the 1^st opposite party, it is understood that 1^st opposite party is deducting huge amount as service charge. As and when the complainant approached 2^nd opposite party and enquired about this, 2^nd opposite party expressed his unwillingness to withdraw the deposited amount.  So the complainant approached 1^st opposite party to withdraw the deposited amount but the opposite parties are not willing to release the amount.  The complainant is entitled to get 12% interest over the deposited amount of ` 75,000 and the complainant is not willing to keep the insurance policy with 1<sup>st</sup> opposite party.  So the complainant approached the opposite parties several times, but they are not ready to release the amount.  Hence the complainant is entitled to get the deposited amount of ` 75,000 along with 12% interest and ` 10,000 as traveling expense and ` 10,000 as compensation for mental agony with dividend.

          In pursuance to the notice issued by the Forum, the 1^st opposite party appeared and filed his version.  2^nd opposite party eventhough received proper notice remained absent and hence he was called absent and set exparty.  The 1^st opposite party filed version admitting that the complainant had taken two policies by depositing ` 25,000 each on 28.03.2008 and 28.03.2010 and product name is Bajaj Allianz Capital Unit gain.  The date of commencement of policies are 28.03.2008 and 28.03.2010 and the term is 47 years and will mature on 28 March, 2054.  According to opposite party, as per stipulations in the policy, if the complainant submits an application for surrender of the policy, prior to the maturity period and if it is made after 36 months, he is liable to pay surrender charges to the opposite party.  In this case the complainant never approached opposite party with an application to surrender the policy.  So the allegations on the contrary are not correct.  It is not correct to say that there is no maturity date fixed for deposit.  The averment that the complainant deposited an amount of ` 25,000 on 28.03.2008, and again deposited ` 25,000 etc are not correct.  It is also incorrect to say that opposite parties expressed their unwillingness to withdraw the deposited amount etc.  The opposite party further denies the allegation that the complainant is entitled to get 12% interest over the deposited amount and also entitled to get ` 10,000 as traveling expense and ` 10,000 as compensation and other dividend.  It is also incorrect to say that the complainant had deposited ` 25,000 on 28.03.2010 as per the persuation made by opposite party.  The complainant never approached the opposite parties for surrendering the policy and without sending any prior notice, the complainant rushed before the Forum with untenable contentions.  The complainant is bound to abide policy conditions and as per policy conditions the complainant is entitled to get benefits only after maturity period.  If the complainant wants to surrender application before maturity period, he can make surrender application before the opposite party only after 36 months and has to pay surrender charge also.  At the time of taking policy the 2^nd opposite party explained the policy conditions to the complainant.  The 1^st opposite party also explained the policy conditions in Malayalam and the complainant took the policy after understanding the conditions in correct way and the complainant is estopped from making claim.  There is no negligence on the part of opposite parties and hence the 1^st opposite party is no way liable to compensate the complainant and hence complaint is liable to be dismissed

          Upon the above contentions the following issues have been raised for consideration.

1.         Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of opposite party?

2.         Whether the complainant is entitled to any relief?

3.         Relief and cost.

The evidence in the above case consists of the oral testimony of PW1, DW1 and Exts. A1 to A4.

          The case of the complainant is that, he had deposited ` 75,000 to the opposite party on persuation  of 2<sup>nd</sup> opposite party with an offer of high dividend and interest over the deposit amount and no maturity date is fixed.  But 2<sup>nd</sup> opposite party is not willing to withdraw the deposited amount and is deducting huge amount as service charge.  In order to prove his case he has examined and produced documents such as photocopy of proposal form, premium receipt dated 28.03.2007, renewal premium receipt dated 28.05.2008 and policy deposit renewal premium receipt dated 12.05.09 etc.  In order to prove the case DW1 was examined by opposite party.  The opposite parties contended that the complainant had taken two policies from Bajaj Alliance Life Insurance by name Bajaj Alliance Capital Unit gain with commencement on 28.03.2010 and the term of policy is for 47 years and maturity date is 28.03.2054.  As per conditions of the policy the complainant can submit application for surrender of the policy prior to maturity period after 36 months by paying surrender charge and has not applied for surrender.  But the opposite party has not produced any documents to prove this.  They have not even produce the terms and conditions of policy.  The operation manager of opposite party, who was examined as DW1 deposed that “]cm-Xn-¡m-c³ 3 instalment Bbn 25000 cq] hoXw AS¨p F¶p ]d-ªm icn-b-Ã.”  But the Exts. A2 to A4 are the premium receipts issued by opposite party which shows that the complainant has paid ` 25000 each to opposite party on 28.03.2007, 28.05.2008 and 12.05.2009 which disproves the case of the opposite party and substantiate the case of the complainant that he has paid ` 75,000 to opposite party.  The DW1 deposed that “36 þm-as¯ amkw Ign-ªmWv surrender charge AS-t¡-­-Xv.  First premiumþ¯nsâ 46% surrender charge Bbn \ÂI-Ww.  CXv aq¶v hÀjs¯ premium IrX-y-ambv AS¨v \mem-as¯ hÀjw ]Ww FSp-¡p-t¼m-gm-Wv.  ]cm-Xn-¡m-c\v policy detailas and terms and conditons ]dªp sImSp-t¯m-sb¶v F\n¡v ]d-bm³ Ign-bn-Ã.”  In order to substantiate these words opposite party has not produced any related documents.  So it is seen that the opposite parties have not instructed and illustrated the details regarding terms and conditions, maturity etc with respect to the policy to the complainant.  So we are of the opinion that there is deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties for which they are liable to compensate the complainant by returning the amount received by them with 12% interest on the date of receipt ie for ` 25,000 from 28.03.2007, for ` 25,000 from 28.05.2008 and for ` 25,000 from 12.05.2009 till the date of realization with ` 1000 as cost of the proceedings.  The 2^nd opposite party is exonerated from liabilities since it is seen that the amount is with 1^st opposite party and order passed accordingly.

          In the result the complaint is allowed partly directing 1^st opposite party to return ` 75,000 (Rupees Seventy five thousand only) to the complainant with 12% interest from the date of receipt  ie for ` 25,000 (Rupees Twenty five thousand only) from 28.03.2007, for ` 25,000 (Rupees Twenty five thousand five hundred only) from 28.05.2008 and for ` 25,000 (Rupees Twenty five thousand only) from 12.05.2009 by opposite party till realization with `1,000 (Rupees One thousand only) as cost of the proceedings within 30 days of receipt of the order, failing which complainant is entitled to execute the order.

                       Sd/-                     Sd/-

                       President               Member

APPENDIX

Exhibits for the Complainant

A1.  Proposal Form.

A2.  Policy deposit premium receipt dated 18.03.2007.

A3.  Policy deposit premium receipt dated 28.05.2008.

A4.  Policy deposit premium receipt dated 12.05.2009.

Exhibits for the opposite party

Nil

Witness examined for the complainant

PW1.  Complainant.

Witness examined for opposite party

DW1. Shinoj P.T.K.

      /forwarded by order/

                                                                     SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT