Punjab

StateCommission

FA/331/2014

Kamaljit Kaur - Complainant(s)

Versus

Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Company Limited & others - Opp.Party(s)

Sanjeev Goyal

09 Mar 2015

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PUNJAB, DAKSHIN MARG, SECTOR 37-A, CHANDIGARH.

 

  First Appeal No.331 of 2014                                                    

                                            Date of Institution   :   31.03.2014

                                Date of Decision     :    09.03.2015

 

Kamaljit Kaur wife of Harvinder Singh daughter of Sh. Gurmeet Singh, resident of village Ghabdan, Tehsil & District Sangrur.

…….Appellant/Complainant

Versus

1. Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Company Limited, Branch Office at Ground floor, FCI building, Near BSNL Exchange, Club Road, Sangrur through its Branch Manager.
2. Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Company Limited, Head Office :GE Plaza, Airport Road, Yerawada, Pune through its Managing Director.
3. Parveen Kumar Sharma S/o Sh. Jatinder Kumar Sharma, resident of Street No.1, Guru Nanak Colony, Sangrur.

                                                          …Respondents/Opposite Parties 

First Appeal against the order dated 07.02.2014 of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Sangrur.

Quorum:- 

          Hon’ble Mr. Justice Gurdev Singh, President

                        Mrs. Surinder Pal Kaur, Member

 

Present:-

          For the appellant            : Sh Sanjeev Goyal, Advocate

          For the respondents      : Ex-parte     

 

SMT. SURINDER PAL KAUR, MEMBER:-

                   This appeal has been preferred by appellant/complainant, for modification of the order dated 07.02.2014,  passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Sangrur, (in short "District Forum"), so as to enhance the compensation and litigation costs awarded by the District Forum and further, to hold that the OPs were liable to pay interest from the date of deposit of the amount of Rs.1,50,000/- on 3.01.2008, and not from the filing of the complaint.

2.                The brief facts, as stated in the complaint, are that opposite party No.3 was authorized agent of OP No.1 & 2. He approached the complainant and her brother Sukhchain Singh at village Ghabdan on 03.01.2008 and told them that their company launched a new FDR scheme under which if anyone would invest minimum of Rs.50,000/-, then his amount would be doubled after 5 years and that the company was also giving free insurance of Rs.5 Lac under the said FDR. Thereafter, she and her brother made up their mind for purchasing the same and invested an amount of Rs.1,50,000/- in it with the hope that after 5 years, she would get Rs.3 Lac as promised by the opposite party No.3. He obtained her signatures on certain blank printed forms without disclosing the contents of the same. After receiving the amount of Rs.1,50,000/-, the said agent issued four receipts in respect of FDRs and told that the FDRs would be issued by the company after 15 days. After the passing of 20 days when the FDRs were not received by the complainant, she approached OP No.3 and informed him that she had not received the FDRs. OP No.3 assured her that receipts had been issued by the company and at the time of maturity, on showing the receipts, the company would make the payment. In January 2013, she received a cheque of Rs.61,791/-, from OP No.1. After receiving that cheque, she along with her brother immediately approached the opposite parties and inquired about the payment and made a request for issuance of balance payment i.e. Rs.2,40,000/-, as promised by OP No.3. They were shocked when OP No.1 informed that their amount was invested in share market insurance policy and as per the policy, they were bound to pay the premium of 1,50,000/-, every year  for 10 years. But they failed to pay the premium regularly and as such, company had closed her policy. An amount of Rs.61,971/-, being  the value of the policy, was released to her. She informed OP No.1 that she was not aware about the said policy. She never received the policy nor any notice regarding the instalment was received. She invested the amount of Rs.1,50,000/-, in FDRs, as disclosed by OP No.3. She also showed the receipts issued by OP No.3 and requested to pay full amount of FDRs but OP No.1 refused to pay any heed to her genuine request. She did not encash the cheque of Rs.61,971/-, till filing the complaint under protest. OP No.3 got invested her hard earned money with false assurance by keeping her in dark. As such, opposite parties are running the business by adopting unfair trade practice. OP No.3 was working as an agent of OP No.1 & 2. The OPs are jointly and severally liable to pay the promised amount i.e. Rs.3,00,000/- along with interest. The above said act of the opposite parties amounted to deficiency in service. Ultimately, she filed the complaint in District Forum seeking the following directions:-

(i) to pay maturity amount of FDR i.e. Rs. 3 Lac along with interest @ of 8% per annum from the date of majority till realization;

(ii) to pay Rs.50,000/-, as compensation on account of mental tension; and

(iv) to pay Rs.11,000/- as litigation expenses.

3.                Upon notice, written reply was filed by OP No.1 & 2 before the District Forum in which they took the preliminary objections that the complaint is hopelessly barred by limitation as the policy, in question, was issued on 07.01.2008 and the complaint was filed on 15.04.2013, after the expiry of more than 5 years. The complainant purchased a regular premium Unit Linked Insurance Policy with his free will. The fund value under the policy depends upon the market. The question of making any promise to pay the double amount, as alleged by complainant did not arise. The complainant is an educated lady and she proposed for regular premium, Unit Linked "Century Plus" policy, after fully understanding the features, benefits, charges, investment risks, and other terms and conditions of the policy. She signed the proposal form in English on 01.01.2008 and made a declaration to the effect that she had fully understood its terms and conditions. The proposal form of the complainant was accepted and Policy bearing no. 0081339834 was issued by them. The date of commencement was 07.01.2008 and premium was to be paid on annual frequency for 10 years. The original policy bond containing express terms and conditions was delivered to the complainant. She continued to enjoy the benefit of policy, in question, apart from risk cover of Rs.7.5, Lac for 13 months from the date of commencement of the policy. No one would wait for policy document for more than 5 years after depositing an amount of Rs.1.5 Lac, without inquiring or lodging any complaint for non-receipt of policy. She concealed the true and correct facts from the District Forum. She was required to make yearly premiums Rs. 1,50,000/-, but failed to pay the premium regularly. Neither she paid the premium nor she revived the policy. There was no obligation on the part of OPs to send reminders to complainant for payment or renewal of premium, still a number of communications were made by them to remind her for payment of revival premium. The revival period of 4 years expired on 06.01.2013, and the contract of insurance was terminated strictly in accordance with the terms of the contract. An amount of Rs. 61,971/- was paid to the complainant as surrender value, vide cheque No. 287105, dated 09.01.2013.  The said cheque was encashed by the complainant without protest as full and final settlement, under policy No. 0081339834. They were not liable for any unauthorized commitments, which was not part of the standard terms and conditions of the policy. They never authorized any representative or agent to make any promise beyond the approved terms and conditions. The answering OPs were only Insurance companies not a bank. So, the question of issuing the FDR did not arise. There was no deficiency in service on their part. Dismissal of the complaint was prayed by them.

4.                OP No. 3 filed a separate written reply before the District Forum. He took the preliminary objections that the complaint is hopelessly time barred.  Moreover, the complainant has levelled the allegations of fraud and, as such the matter cannot be decided by District Forum in summary proceedings. He pleaded that he neither approached the complainant or her brother Sukhchain Singh at village Ghabdan on 03.01.2008 nor informed them that their company had launched the FDRs scheme, as alleged in the complaint.  He further denied having given any assurance to the complainant regarding free insurance policy of Rs.5 lac. The receipts were issued to the complainant by the company office which were collected by her from the company office itself.  She is well educated lady and proposed for regular premium Unit Linked "Century Plus" Policy after fully understanding the features, benefits, charges, investment risks and other terms and conditions of the said policy. He explained the terms and conditions of the policy to her in simple vernacular language. She never lodged any complaint against him regarding the non receipt of policy.  He is  only the agent of the company and was not liable for any loss. Denying any deficiency in service on his part, dismissal of the complaint was prayed.

5.                The parties produced their evidence in support of their respective averments before the District Forum, which after going through the same and hearing Ld. Counsel on their behalf, allowed the complaint, vide aforesaid order.

6.                Not fully satisfied with the order of the District Forum, the complainant has filed the appeal.

7.                No one appeared on behalf of the respondents/Opposite parties before this Commission in spite of their service and, therefore, were proceeded against ex parte

8.                We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and have also carefully gone through the record of the District Forum.

9.                 It was submitted by the counsel for the appellant that the amount, in dispute, was deposited with the respondents/OPs on 03.01.2008 and as such interest should have been allowed by the District Forum from that date itself.  It was also submitted that the compensation of Rs. 10,000/- and litigation costs of Rs. 5500/-, as awarded by District Forum are on lower side. Modification of the order passed by the District Forum was prayed by him.

10.              The only question in the appeal is, whether the complainant is entitled to get the interest from the date of investment i.e. 03.01.2008? While allowing the complaint, the District Forum held that the complainant was never made aware that she has invested in life saving Unit Linked Policy and she was always made to believe that OPs have invested the amount in FDR and the same will be doubled in 5 years. There is no dispute that the amount of Rs.1,50,000/- was invested on 3.01.2008 and the same remained with the OP for more than 5 years and the OP used the same. The complainant was deprived of use of this money for all this period. District Forum erred in not awarding the interest from the date of investment. As such, the complainant is entitled to get her amount with interest from the date of investment i.e. 3.01.2008. The opposite party is directed to pay the interest from 03.01.2008 instead of 17.04.2013 as awarded by the District Forum. The appeal is partly allowed and the order of the District Forum is modified to that extent. The other part of the order of the District Forum is kept intact.

11.              The arguments in this case were heard on 21.01.2015 and the order was reserved.  Now, the order be communicated to the parties.

12.              The appeal could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of court cases.

 

                                                                 (JUSTICE GURDEV SINGH)

                                                                         PRESIDENT

 

                                                         

March    09, 2015                                        (SURINDER PAL KAUR)

RK2                                                                     MEMBER