| Final Order / Judgement | DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BATHINDA C.C. No. 221 of 24-8-2018 Decided on : 30-03-2022 Baljinder Singh aged about 46 years S/o Sh. Gurdev Singh, R/o # Village Kalyan Malka, Tehsil & District Bathinda. ........Complainant
Versus Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Co. Ltd., Regd. Office at GE Plaza, Airport Road, Yerwada, Pune 411006 through its Managing Director/Chairman Bajaj Allianz Life insurance Co. Ltd., 2nd Floor, Above Blue Dart Courier, Near Hanuman Chowk, Goniana Road, Bathinda, through its Branch Manager Baljinder Singh, S/o Sh. Gurcharan Singh, R/o Village Kalyan Sukha, Tehsil & District Bathinda.
.......Opposite parties
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 QUORUM Sh. Kanwar Sandeep Singh, President Sh. Shivdev Singh, Member Smt. Paramjeet Kaur, Member Present For the complainant : Sh. G.S. Sidhu, Advocate For opposite parties : Sh. Varun Gupta, Advocate, for OPs No. 1 & 2. OP No. 3 exparte. ORDER Kanwar Sandeep Singh, President The complainant Baljinder Singh (here-in-after referred to as complainant) has filed this complaint U/s 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (Now C.P. Act, 2019, here-in after referred to as 'Act') before this Forum (Now Commission) against Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Co. Ltd., and others (here-in-after referred to as opposite parties). Briefly stated the case of the complainant is that he is permanent resident of Vill. Kalyan Malka, Distt. Bathinda. The complainant purchased a life insurance policy from opposite parties No. 1&2 vide Policy No.138145408 and the said policy matured in year 2018. It is alleged that the complainant received a message from opposite parties No. 1&2 on his mobile number 94636-36426 which he provided to the opposite parties No. 1 & 2 at the time of purchasing the policy. Vide said message, the complainant was required to submit the requisite documents in the office of the opposite party No. 2 to get the amount of policy in question transferred in his account. Accordingly, complainant visited the office of opposite party No. 2 to enquire about the formalities required to be completed to get the payment and concerned official/dealing clerk of opposite party No. 2 advised him to furnish the copy of his bank account, Aadhaar Card and PAN Card. Original passbook of the account of the complainant was lost, so he furnished the copy of the Aadhaar Card and PAN Card in the office of the opposite party No. 2 and also furnished his bank account for the transfer of the amount of the policy i.e. Rs.51,882/- in the said account of the complainant. The complainant further alleged that he did not receive any amount in his aforesaid account, so on 18.7.2018, he again visited the office of opposite party No. 2 and enquired about his payment against the policy in question but he came to know that one Baljinder Singh son of Sh.Gurcharan Singh i.e. opposite party No.3 has got the amount of aforesaid policy of the complainant i.e. Rs.51,882/- transferred in his bank account No. 13461650009016 with HDFC Bank Ltd., Bathinda by furnishing the copies of his bank account, Aadhaar Card No.777952366556 etc., by proclaiming to opposite party No. 3 that the said Policy No.138145408 belongs to him whereas opposite party No. 3 has absolutely no concern with the policy of the complainant. The complainant also alleged that amount of the policy in question of complainant has been received by opposite party No. 3, in collusion and connivance with the officials of the opposite parties No. l & 2. On further enquiry, it also revealed to the complainant that the officials of the opposite parties No.1 & 2 also changed the mobile number of complainant in the policy document from 94636-36426 to 9915020295 of opposite party No. 3, so that complainant may not get any information regarding encashment of the amount of policy in the account of opposite party No. 3. The complainant then requested the officials of the opposite parties that the opposite party No. 3 has no concern with the aforesaid policy of the complainant rather the same belongs to the complainant and the amount was required to be transferred in the account of the complainant but the same has been wrongly transferred in the account of opposite party No. 3 for which the complainant is not at fault. The complainant requested the concerned officials of the opposite party No. 2 to pay the aforesaid amount of Rs.51,882/- to the complainant but to no effect. The officials of the opposite parties No. 1&2 did not pay any heed to the requests of the complainant. The complainant has already filed an application dated 20.7.2018 before SSP, Bathinda for taking legal action against the concerned officials of the opposite parties No. 1&2 as well as opposite party No.3. It is alleged that due to the said illegal acts of the opposite parties, the complainant suffered great mental tension, agony, botheration, harassment and humiliation and huge financial losses for which he claims compensation to the tune of Rs.25,000/-. On this backdrop of facts, the complainant has prayed for directions to the opposite parties No. 1 & 2 to pay an amount of Rs.51,882/-with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of maturity of policy till payment and pay Rs.25,000/- as compensation besides Rs.5500/- as litigation expenses. Registered A.D. Notice was sent to the opposite parties. None appeared on behalf of opposite party No. 3, as such, exparte proceedings were taken against opposite party No. 3. The opposite parties No. 1 & 2 put an appearance through counsel and contested the complainant by filing joint written reply raising legal objections that opposite parties are ready for making payment in favour of the complainant as per policy terms and conditions. Some formalities are still pending on the part of the complainant, and after fulfilling the same by complainant, opposite party will transfer the amount of the policy in the account of the complainant. That the complainant is not maintainable as the complainant has attempted to misguide and mislead this Commission. That the complainant has failed to disclose any legal and valid cause of action against the opposite party. That the complaint does not qualify the ingredients of a valid complaint. That the complainant has created a false story in his complaint to mislead this Commission by false and frivolous facts and circumstances of the present case. That the complainant has no cause of action to file the present complaint. That intricate questions of law and facts are involved in this case. The parties have to lead his/its evidence by examining the witnesses and the said witnesses are to be cross examined by the other party but the procedure under the Act is summary in nature. That neither there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties nor the opposite partes have indulged in unfair trade practice. That the complainant is estopped from filing the present complaint by his own acts, conduct, omissions and acquiescence. That the opposite parties float the Insurance Schemes for the public in general after prior approval of the Insurance Regulatory & Development Authority ("IRDA") and all the terms and conditions of the respective Insurance Policies are set by the I.R.D.A. constituted under the I.R.D.A Act, 1999 and Insurance Act, 1938. That the complaint is false, frivolous and vexatious in nature and has been filed in order to cause undue harassment to the opposite parties. It has been pleaded that policy is a legal contract between the insurer and insured and the parties to it are bound by its terms and conditions and all the benefits are payable strictly as per the policy terms and conditions. On merits, the opposite parties No. 1 & 2 admitted that complainant purchased the said policy from them and paid requisite premium and accordingly the opposite parties issued the policy in favour of the complainant. It has been pleaded that complainant approached the opposite party on 20.07.2018 and on this, it came to the knowledge that opposite party No. 3 wrongly got the amount from opposite parties No. 1 & 2. The opposite parties No. 1 & 2 immediately approached opposite party No.3 and described the entire facts and on this, the opposite party No. 3 returned the entire amount received by him. The opposite parties No. 1 & 2 have pleaded that complainant first time approached the opposite parties on 20.07.2018. The opposite parties No. 1 & 2 believing that the name of opposite party No.3 is same and due to this, inadvertently process the request of opposite party No.3 and transferred the said amount in their account. It has been pleaded that the opposite parties No. 1 & 2 are ready to release the amount in favour of the complainant on submitting the account details. After controverting all other averments of the complainant, the opposite parties No. 1 & 2 prayed for dismissal of complaint. In support of his complaint, the complainant has tendered into evidence photocopy of affidavit of Baljinder Singh/complainant (Ex. C-1), photocopy of receipt (Ex. C-2), photocopy of letters (Ex. C-3 & Ex. C-4), postal receipt (Ex. C-5) and affidavit dated 22-8-18 of complainant Baljinder Singh (Ex. C-6). In order to rebut the evidence of complainant, opposite parties No. 1 & 2 tendered into evidence affidavit dated 22-10-18 of Rajiv Kumar (Ex. OP-1/1). The learned counsel for complainant and opposite parties No. 1 & 2 reiterated their stand as taken in their respective pleadings. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record. In the case in hand the opposite parties No. 1 & 2 have admitted that policy in question belongs to complainant but advertently, they paid the maturity amount of policy of complainant to opposite party No. 3 as the name of opposite party No. 3 was same as of complainant. The opposite parties No. 1 & 2 have also pleaded in para No. 4 on merits in their written reply that complainant approached opposite parties No. 1 & 2 on 20-7-2018 and then they came to know that opposite party No. 3 wrongly got the amount and thereafter opposite parties No. 1 & 2 immediately approached opposite party No. 3 and described entire facts and opposite party No. 3 returned the entire amount. Thus, it is proved on file that opposite parties No. 1 & 2 paid the maturity amount of policy in question of complainant to opposite party No. 3, which proves gross negligence/deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties No. 1 & 2. Despite knowing the fact that due amount of complainant has wrongly been paid to opposite party No. 3, the opposite parties No. 1 & 2 did not make any efforts to pay the money of complainant to him even during the pendency of complaint. Therefore, the complainant is entitled to some amount of compensation also on account of harassment which he suffered at the hands of the opposite parties No. 1 & 2 without any fault on his part. No relief has been claimed by complainant against opposite party No. 3. The plea of the opposite parties No. 1 & 2 that they are ready to release the amount in favour of the complainant on submitting the account detail, is not tenable because when complainant can knock the door of this Commission to get his money released then why he would not have furnished just one information i.e. bank account to opposite parties No. 1 & 2 if asked by them for this purpose. However, opposite parties 1 & 2 may again obtain bank account Number of complainant, if need be. Resultantly this complaint is partly allowed with Rs. 15,000/- against opposite parties No. 1 & 2 and stands dismissed qua opposite party No. 3. The opposite parties No. 1 & 2 are further directed to pay to complainant Rs. 51,882/- with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of maturity till payment. The compliance of this order be made by the opposite parties No. 1 & 2 jointly and severally within 45 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. The complaint could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of cases. Copy of order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost and file be consigned to the record. Announced : 30-3-2022 (Kanwar Sandeep Singh) President (Shivdev Singh) Member (Paramjeet Kaur) Member
| |
