Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/698/2017

Surekha Singla - Complainant(s)

Versus

Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Gourav Goel

21 Dec 2018

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I, U.T. CHANDIGARH

============

Consumer Complaint  No	:	CC/698/2017
Date  of  Institution	:	09/10/2017
Date   of   Decision	:	21/12/2018

 

 

 

 

 

1)   Surekha Singla wife of Sh. D.K. Singla, Resident of H.No.2518, Sector 35-C, Chandigarh – 160036.

 

2)   D.K. Singla son of Sh. Prem Chand, Resident of H.No.2518, Sector 35-C, Chandigarh – 160036.

……… Complainants

 

Versus

 

1)   Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Limited, Registered Office: G.E. Plazza, Airport Road, Yerwada, Pune-411006 (India), through its Managing Director.

 

2)   Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Limited, Branch Office: SCO 329, 1^st Floor, Sector 9, Panchkula (Haryana), through its Branch Manager.

 

3)   AXIS Bank, Corporate Office: Bombay Dyeing Mills Compound, Pandurang Budhkar Marg, Worli, Mumbai-400 025, through its Managing Director.

 

4)   AXIS Bank, Branch Office: SCO 134-135, Sector 34-A, Chandigarh, through its Branch Manager.

……. Opposite Parties

 

BEFORE:   SH. RATTAN SINGH THAKUR      PRESIDENT

SMT.SURJEET KAUR             MEMBER

 

For Complainants	:	Sh. Gourav Goel, Advocate.
For OPs No.1 & 2	:	Sh. Sachin Ohri, Advocate.
For OPs No.3 & 4	:	Sh. Gaurav Gupta, Advocate.

 

PER SURJEET KAUR, MEMBER

 

 

          Mrs. Surekha Singla and Sh. D.K. Singla – Complainants have filed this Consumer Complaint under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, against Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited and others (hereinafter called the Opposite Parties), alleging that on 10.01.2012, they had availed a Housing Loan of Rs.99,85,727/- from Opposite Party No.4. As per its Policy, the Opposite Party No.4 got the House/Property of the Complainants insured for a period of 20 years from Opposite Party No.2 and charges Rs.42,885/- as insurance charges. The aforesaid housing loan from Opposite Party No.4 was ultimately adjusted by the Complainants on 28.11.2013. The Complainant thereafter requested the Opposite Parties by various letters/e-mails (Annexure C-3 to C-6) for refund of the un-expired amount of insurance premium paid by them in advance. It was only after expiry of more than 2½ years the Opposite Party No.2 had refunded only an amount of Rs.24,259/- vide NEFT dated 25.08.2016. The Complainants accordingly, requested the Opposite Parties vide e-mails (Annexure C-8 to C-14) for refund of the balance amount, but of no use. Hence, alleging the aforesaid act & conduct of the Opposite Parties as deficiency in service and indulgence into unfair trade practice, the Complainants have preferred the present Complaint.

 

2.      Notice of the complaint was sent to Opposite Parties seeking their version of the case.

 

3.      Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 contested the claim of the Complainant and filed their joint written statement, inter alia, admitting the factual matrix of the case. It has been pleaded that the Complainants had approached for the refund of their balance premium on 19.07.2016 after the period of 5 years. Accordingly, refund of Rs.22,515/- was made to the insured as per the terms and conditions of the policy. After refund of premium, as per terms & conditions of the policy, policy was cancelled and endorsement was made on the policy that policy was cancelled. Thus, denying all other allegations and stating that there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on their part, Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 have prayed for dismissal of the complaint. 

 

4.      Opposite Parties No.3 & 4 filed their joint written statement, inter alia, admitting the factual matrix of the case. It has been pleaded that no cause of action has been arisen against the answering Opposite Parties since the amount was refunded by Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 and the Policy was issued by Opposite Parties No.1 & 2. Thus, denying all other allegations and stating that there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on their part, Opposite Parties No.3 & 4 have prayed for dismissal of the complaint. 

 

5.      Parties were permitted to place their respective evidence on record in support of their contentions.

 

6.      We have heard the learned counsel for the Parties and also perused the record with utmost care and circumspection.

 

7.      Admittedly, the loan in question was availed by the Complainants, which was insured for a period of 20 years, after payment of the required premium to the tune of Rs.42,885/-. It is proved on record that the Complainants settled the claim within a period of 22 months and Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 after repeated requests of the Complainants refunded an amount of Rs.24,259/- on 25.08.2016 towards the refund of the balance amount of unexpired insurance premium. The grouse of the Complainants, through the present Complaint, is that Opposite Parties have been refunded less amount of unexpired insurance premium.

 

8.      Meticulous perusal of the entire record makes it abundantly clear that the Complainants discharged their liability within 22 months; whereas, they got the loan amount insured for a period of 20 years. Contradictory to the same, Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 in Para No.4 of their reply have contended that the Complainants themselves approached them for the refund of their balance premium on 19.07.2016 i.e. after the period of 05 years and accordingly, refund of Rs.22,515/- was made to them as per the terms and conditions of the policy. In support of their claim, one calculation has been given by Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 where Policy period has been mentioned as 05 years. Hence, Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 have taken a dual stand by stating the running period of the policy as 05 years; whereas, the true picture is otherwise.

 

9.      In our opinion, when the Complainants settled the loan amount, within a period of 22 months, then it was the responsibility of the Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 to record the correct running time of the policy in their official records. However, the Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 instead of shouldering the responsibility are burdening the Complainants that it was the fault of the Complainants who approached them after the expiry of 05 years for the refund of the balance premium amount. Hence, the act of the Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 for not taking appropriate steps at the appropriate time by closing the policy after the complete settlement by the Complainants and thereafter, refunding less amount, proves deficiency in service on their part, which in turn has definitely caused unprecedented physical and mental harassment to the Complainant and forced him to indulge in the present unnecessary litigation.

 

10.      For the reasons recorded above, the present complaint of the Complainants deserves to succeed against the Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 and the same is partly allowed. The Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 are, jointly and severally, directed:-

[a]  To refund the unexpired insurance charges to the Complainants, along with interest @9% p.a. from 25.08.2016, till it is paid;

[b]  To pay Rs.10,000/- as compensation to the complainants for deficiency in service, unfair trade practice and harassment caused to them.

[c]  To also pay a sum of Rs.7,000/- to the complainants as litigation expenses. 

          The complaint against Opposite Parties No.3 & 4 fails and is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs. 

11.      The above said order shall be complied within 30 days of its receipt by the Opposite Parties No.1 & 2; thereafter, they shall be liable for an interest @12% per annum on the amount mentioned in sub-para [a] above from 25.08.2016, till it is paid. The compensation amount as per sub-para [b] above, shall carry interest @12% per annum from the date of institution of this complaint, till it is paid, apart from cost of litigation of Rs.7,000/-.  
12.      Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room.

Announced

21^st Dec., 2018                                                                      

Sd/-

(RATTAN SINGH THAKUR)

PRESIDENT

 

Sd/-

(SURJEET KAUR)

       MEMBER

 

 “Dutt”