Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rohtak.
Complaint No. : 60.
Instituted on : 07.02.2014.
Decided on : 20.02.2017.
Pardeep Kumar s/o Sh. Jagdev Singh, VPO Samchana, Pana Gur, Rohtak, Haryana.
………..Complainant.
Vs.
- Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance company Limited, 1st Floor, Dalal Com,plex, Near Raj Motors, Delhi Road, Rohtak-124001 through its Manager.
- Bajaj Allianz Life Insuance Company Limited, SCO No.7, 2nd Floor, Sector-14, Near Payal Cinema, Gurgoan-122001 throough its Manager.
- Bajaj Allianz Life Insruance company Limited, GW Plaza, Airport Road, Yerawada, Pune-411006 through its General Manager.
……….Opposite parties.
COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986.
BEFORE: SH.JOGINDER KUMAR JAKHAR, PRESIDENT.
MS. KOMAL KHANNA, MEMBER.
SH. VED PAL, MEMBER.
Present: Ms. Lovina Singla, Advocate for the complainant.
Sh.Gulshan Chawla, Advocate for the opposite parties.
ORDER
SH. JOGINDER KUMAR JAKHAR, PRESIDENT :
1. The present complaint has been filed by the complainant with the averments that he has purchased a policy of the opposite parties vide policy No.005240370 date of risk 28.05.2007 and plan–Bajaj Allianz New Unit Gain Plus-SP. It is averred that the premium of the policy was Rs.25000/- per year and the complainant paid the premium regularly upto the date of maturity i.e. 28.05.2012. It is averred that the policy has expired on 28.05.2012 and he has completed all the formalities of the policy of the company but the company did not pay any heed to the request of complainant. It is averred that complainant requested the opposite party to pay the entire amount but the opposite party threatened the complainant of dire consequences. It is averred that one Kuldeep Singh who was policy holder of the opposite parties of the similar policy nature had been granted the entire amount but the claim of the complainant has been rejected without assigning any cogent reason. It is averred that the act of opposite parties is illegal and amounts to deficiency in service. As such it is prayed that opposite parties may kindly be directed to pay a compensation of Rs.200000/- to the complainant alongwith interest, compensation and litigation expenses to the complainant.
2. On notice opposite parties appeared and filed their written reply submitting therein that since the contract of insurance under policy number 0052640370 stands terminated upon payment of maturity claim thus the complainant is not a consumer of the answering opposite parties as defined under section 2(1)(d) of the C.P.Act. It is averred that complainant himself opted for a single premium policy having premium of Rs.25000/- thus, the question of making the payment of regular premium does not arise. It is averred that opposite parties have already made the payment of Rs.25415/- vide cheque no.800679 dated 25.08.2012 towards full and final maturity claim under policy number 0052640370 and the said cheque stands encashed by the complainant through this State Bank of Patiala, Model Town, Rohtak account on 28.08.2012 without any protest. Thus the complainant has received the said amount towards full and final settlement of his claim under the policy and the complainant has filed a frivolous complaint just to harass the answering opposite parties. It is averred that nothing more is liable to be paid to him. All the other contents of the complaint were stated to be wrong and denied. Opposite parties prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs.
3. Both the parties led evidence in support of their case.
4. Complainant in his evidence has tendered affidavit Ex.CW1/A, documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C7 and has closed his evidence. On the other hand ld. Counsel for the opposite parties has tendered affidavit Ex.RW1/A, documents Ex.R1 to Ex.R5 and has closed his evidence.
5. We have heard ld. counsel for the parties and have gone through the material aspects of the case carefully.
6. In the present case it is not disputed that as per commission bill Ex.C4 for the period 01.06.2007 to 21.06.2007 which is related to Agent Manju Rana, the effective date of policy of complainant Pardeep Kumar is 28.05.2007, sum assured is Rs.125000, premium term is 5, frequency is 01 and premium amount is Rs.25000/-. Similarly Mr. Kuldeep Singh has the same features of the policy as mentioned in Ex.C4. As per Receipts Ex.C1 relating to Mr. Kuldeep Singh and Ex.C2 of Pardeep Singh the date of risk, sum assured, frequency of payment and premium installment, date of commencement and date of end are also the same. There is not even a single difference in the policies issued to Pardeep Kumar and Kuldeep Singh whereas as per the payment reference Ex.C5 an amount of Rs.25415/- has been paid to the complainant Pardeep Kumar vide cheque no.800679 dated 28.08.2012 and as per Ex.C6 an amount of Rs.56708/- vide cheque no.777443 dated 16.07.2012 has been paid to Kuldeep Singh.
7. After going through the file and hearing the parties it is observed that both the policies issued to complainant and one Kudeep Singh are having same date of commencement and date of maturity but the maturity amount paid to both the policies is different. The contention of the opposite party is that the fund value under the policies may increase or decrease depends upon the market and the performance of units held under each policy. But in the present case when the date of commencement and date of maturity of policies are the same then how the fund value and performance of units can differ. There is no evidence placed on record by the opposite parties to prove the fact that the fund value of both the policies was different on the same date. Hence the payment of less amount paid to the complainant is illegal and amounts to deficiency in service. As such opposite parties are liable to pay the remaining amount to the complainant.
8. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case it is observed that opposite parties shall pay the remaining amount(Rs.56708/- less 25415/-) i.e. Rs.31293/-(Rupees thirty one thousand two hundred ninety three only) alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of less payment i.e. 28.08.2012 till its actual realization and shall also pay Rs.3500/-(Rupees three thousand five hundred only) as litigation expenses to the complainant maximum within one month from the date of decision failing which opposite parties shall be liable to pay further interest @ 12% p.a. on the awarded amount from the date of decision. Complaint is allowed accordingly.
9. Copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of costs.
10. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced in open court:
20.02.2017.
................................................
Joginder Kumar Jakhar, President
..........................................
Komal Khanna, Member.
…………………………….
Ved Pal, Member.
