Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/824/2015

Smt. Kalawati - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

In person

16 Feb 2017

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

 

                               

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/824/2015
Date of Institution	:	11/12/2015
Date of Decision	:	16/02/2017

 

1.     Smt. Kalawati wife of Sh. Ishwar Chander r/o House No.70B, Village Maheshpur, Sector 21, Panchkula.

2.     Sh. Ishwar Chander, r/o House No.70B, Village Maheshpur, Sector 21, Panchkula.

…..Complainants

V E R S U S

1.     Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Co. Ltd., SCO 45, Pocket 1, Manimajra, NAC, Chandigarh through its Branch Manager.

2.     Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Co. Ltd. having its Registered & Head Office at GE Plaza, Airport Road, Yerawada, Pune 411006 through its Manager/Branch Manager;

3.     Dena Bank, SCO 89, Sector 21, Panchkula through its Branch Manager.

4.     Sandeep Kumar the then Manager, service to be effected through Dena Bank SCO 89, Sector 21, Panchkula.

……Opposite Parties

 

CORAM :	S.S. PANESAR	PRESIDENT
	MRS.SURJEET KAUR	MEMBER
	SURESH KUMAR SARDANA	MEMBER

                                                                       

 

ARGUED BY	:	Complainants in person.
	:	Sh. Varun Chawla, Counsel for OPs 1 & 2.
	:	Sh. Ravi Sharma, Counsel for OPs 3 & 4.

Per S.S. Panesar, President

1.         The facts of the complaint, in brief, are that in December 2009, the complainants were approached by Sh. Sandeep Kumar (OP-4) for taking loan for construction of house and insisted that the loan can only be disbursed if two insurance policies of Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Company were taken. On the persistent asking of OP-4 and under compulsion, complainant No.1 was disbursed loan to the tune of Rs.9,40,000/- since 4.4.2009 and the complainants were made to pay yearly premiums of insurance to the tune of Rs.40,000/- each.  Two insurance certificates (Annexure C-3 & C-4) were issued in the name of complainants. The complainants paid all the premiums upto five years and also the outstanding loan amount to the Dena Bank. Though, both the policies under Master Policy lapsed on 6.7.2010, yet, the amount of premiums paid alongwith accrued bonus and interest was not remitted to the complainants by the OPs despite approaching them.  Alleging that the aforesaid acts amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs, the complainants have filed the instant complaint. 
2.         OPs 1 & 2 in their written reply have averred that the complainants being prudent persons themselves out of their free will proposed to be enrolled as members of the “Sarve Shakti Suraksha” policy issued to Dena Bank vide proposal dated 13.8.2010 and opted to pay regular yearly premiums @ Rs.40,000/-.  The complainants never raised any objection with regard to the terms and conditions thereof and continued to enjoy the benefits of membership.  As per the OPs, maturity benefits amounting to Rs.1,91,457/- under membership No.0212723114 vide cheque No.652988 dated 29.8.2015 and maturity benefits amounting to Rs.1,91,457/- under membership No.0212672801 vide cheque No.651247 dated 28.8.2015 were paid to the Master Policy holder Dena Bank Branch office at Sector 21, Panchkula to Mr. Sandeep (Bank Branch Personnel) directly in the accounts of the complainants strictly in accordance with the terms and conditions of the master policy bearing No.0172725492.  However, as per the confirmation received from Dena Bank vide letter dated 16.11.2015, the complainants refused to accept the cheques for the maturity value without any reasonable cause. Pleading that there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on their part, OPs 1 & 2 prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
3.         OPs 3 & 4 in their separate written reply have admitted that the loan was disbursed to the complainants on execution of loan documents.  It has been denied that there was any compulsion on the complainants.  Complainant No.2 had consented of his free will and on behalf of his wife also opted to buy the insurance policies in question after understanding the terms and conditions of the same.  Pleading that there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on their part, OPs 3 & 4 also prayed for dismissal of the complaint. 
4.         Separate rejoinders were filed by the complainants denying all the averments in the written statements of the OPs. 
5.         The parties led evidence in support of their contentions. 
6.         We have gone through the record and heard the arguments addressed by the complainants in person and learned Counsel for the OPs.
7.         From the appreciation of the evidence on record, it becomes evident that both the complainants purchased two Bajaj Allianz insurance policies (one each) and the insurance certificates account for Annexure 3 & 4. The complainants admittedly paid insurance premium(s) for both the insurance policies for five years to the tune of Rs.40,000/- each.  Master policy lapsed as far back as on 6.7.2010, but, till date, OPs 1 & 2 have not paid the premium(s) deposited alongwith assured bonus and interest despite repeated requests. 
8.         The stand of OPs 1 & 2 has been that the maturity benefits amounting to Rs.1,91,457/- under membership No.0212723114 vide cheque No.652988 dated 29.8.2015 and maturity benefits amounting to Rs.1,91,457/- under membership No.0212672801 vide cheque No.651247 dated 28.8.2015 were paid to the Master Policy holder Dena Bank Branch office at Sector 21, Panchkula to Mr. Sandeep (Bank Branch Personnel) directly in the accounts of the complainants.  However, as per the confirmation received from the Dena Bank vide letter dated 16.12.2015, the complainants had refused to accept the cheques for maturity value without any reasonable cause. On the other hand, neither OPs 1 & 2 have presented any documentary proof in this regard nor Dena Bank/OP-3 or Mr. Sandeep Kumar (OP-4), the then Manager of Dena Bank, have made into the Forum to lend support to the contention of OPs 1 & 2; whereas it is the consistent stand of the complainants that they have not received any maturity amount of the Master Insurance policies in dispute. OPs 1 & 2 were repositories of all record and had there been any default on the part of the complainants, they must have produced documentary evidence to non-suit the complainants. In such a situation, we have no option, but, to hold that OPs 1 to 3 were deficient in service.  Not only that, the complainants are to receive maturity amount to the tune of Rs.1,91,457/- each on both the master policies, but, they are also entitled to receive compensation for deficiency in service as well as costs of litigation.
9.         In view of the above discussion, the present complaint is partly allowed and OPs 1 to 3 are directed as under :-

(i)     OPs 1 & 2 shall pay to each of the complainants Rs.1,91,457/- pertaining to master insurance policies in dispute;

(ii)    OPs 1 to 3 shall pay to the complainants Rs.20,000/- as compensation on account of deficient services;

(iii)   OPs 1 to 3 shall pay to the complainants Rs.10,000/- as costs of litigation. 

10.         This order be complied with by the respective OPs within thirty days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which, they shall make the payment of the amounts mentioned at Sr.No.(i) & (ii) above, with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of this order, till realization, apart from compliance of direction at Sr.No.(iii) above.
11.         The consumer complaint qua OP-4 fails and the same is accordingly dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs. 
12.         The certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

 

	Sd/-	Sd/-	Sd/-
16/02/2017	[Suresh Kumar Sardana]	[Surjeet Kaur]	[S.S. Panesar]
hg	Member	Member	President