Rakesh Kumar Sharma, resident of House No.79, Sector 19-A,Chandigarh.

^{…..Appellant/Complainant}

1]      

2]      Airport Road, Yerawada, Pune 411006

------------------------------------------------------------­­­­--------------

Manju Sharma w/o Sh.Rakesh Kumar Sharma, r/o H.No.79, Sector 19-A,Chandigarh.

 ^{…..Appellant/Complainant}

1]      

2]      Airport Road, Yerawada, Pune 411006.

Appeals under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

BEFORE:

Argued by:

Sh.Vikas Gupta, Advocate for the appellant.

Sh.Varun Chawla, Advocate for the respondents.

PER PADMA PANDEY, MEMBER

                  This order shall dispose of the aforesaid twoof 2013, titled as Rakesh Kumar Sharma Vs.    

2.                   The facts as contained in     

Consumer Complaint No.231 of 2013

3.                   In this complaint also, on the presentation of rosy picture, by the representative of the Opposite Parties, the complainant invested Rs.1,00,000/- in one time investment plan with life cover of 15 years. 

4.                   It was further stated that, on account of the aforesaid acts of omission and commission, the Opposite Parties were deficient, in rendering service, as also, indulged into unfair trade practice. 

5.                    In their written statement, the Opposite Parties stated that the complainants themselves proposed for the Unit Linked Regular Premium Bajaj Allianz “Century Plus” Policy after fully understanding the features, benefits, investment risks, charges and other terms & conditions and submitted a proposal for insurance dated 31.12.2007 duly signed.     

6.                    The Parties led evidence, in support of their case.

7.                    After hearing the Counsel for the parties and, on going through the evidence and record of the case, the District Forum, dismissed the complaints. 

8.                    Feeling aggrieved, the instant appeals, have been filed by the appellants. 

9.                    We have heard the Counsel for the parties, and have gone through the evidence and record of the case, carefully. 

10.                  The Counsel for the appellants/complainants submitted that the appellants had purchased insurance Policies in their names, as well as in the names of other family members known as “Century Plus Plan” at the instance of the respondents/Opposite Parties, and invested a sum of Rs.1.00 lac each on 28.12.2007. The representative of the Opposite Parties assured that the complainants would get minimum return of 18% p.a. The Opposite Parties further assured the complainants that they could withdraw the invested amount alongwith returns anytime, after the expiry of lock in period of three years. He further submitted that the complainants never received the Policies. The complainants approached the respondents for the withdrawal of invested amount alongwith returns, but they lingered on the matter on one pretext or the other. 

11.                  On the other hand, the Counsel for the respondents/Opposite Parties, submitted that the Policy bonds alongwith the terms and conditions were delivered to the complainants through registered post, which were never received back undelivered. Moreover, the complainants had not brought the matter, to the knowledge of the Opposite Parties/Insurance Company, about the non-receipt of Policies since 28.12.2007. He further submitted that according to the terms and conditions of the Insurance Policies (Annexure R-3) at page 59 of the District Forum, the complainants were requested to pay the premiums annually but they did not pay the subsequent premiums after depositing the first premium and, therefore, the Policies lapsed. 

12.                  The first question, that falls for consideration is, as to whether,  ChandigarhChandigarhChandigarh, wherein, they denied the allegations contained in the same (complaint). Non-disclosure of the fact, in the complaint, made to the Senior Superintendent of Police, Sector 19,Chandigarh  Such a belated plea, taken by the complainants in the Consumer Complaints is unbelievable. 

13.                  The next question, that falls for consideration, is, as to whether, the Policies, in question, acquired any surrender value. Admittedly, one premium in respect of each of the Polices, was paid by the complainants, on 28.12.2007 and the receipts were issued in their favour. reads as under:

“5)

a)      

b)      

1)           

2)      

3

c)

1.      

2)      

3)      

ch      

14.                  It is evident from the afore extracted Clause 5 of the terms and conditions of the Policies, that, in the event of  

15.                  The next question, that falls, for consideration, is what was the surrender value, which the Policies acquired after the lapse of 4 years, when the first unpaid premium became due. The Counsel for the respondents was directed to furnish the detail of the surrender value, which the Policies had acquired and the formula, on the basis whereof, the said surrender value was arrived at. He submitted the details with the formula, on the basis whereof, the surrender value was arrived at. 

16.                  The next question, that falls, for consideration, is, as to whether, the surrender value, which these Polices had acquired on 31.12.2012 was paid to the complainants immediately thereafter or not. According the Counsel for the respondents, the cheques with regard to the surrender value were sent to the complainants, through speed post, but the same were not received back and, as such, the same were presumed to have been received by them. However, no statement of account was produced by the respondents to prove that the amount of the cheques allegedly sent by them to the complainants, in relation to the surrender value. had been debited to their account. Accordingly, the Counsel for the respondents were directed to ascertain this fact. After ascertaining this fact, from the concerned office, he submitted that the amount of the cheques of the surrender value sent to the complainants, was not debited to their account. It means that the payment of the surrender value was not made to the complainants and, as such, they become entitled to the surrender value, referred to above, as on 31.12.2012. 

17.                  The next question, that falls, for consideration, is, as to whether, the appellants/complainants are entitled to interest on the amount illegally and improperly withheld by the respondents, or not. 

18.                  No further point has been argued by the Counsel for the parties.

19.                  In view of the above discussion, it is held that the order of the District Forum, is not based on the correct appreciation of evidence and law, on the point. It suffers from illegality and perversity, warranting the interference of this Commission. The order of the District Forum is, thus, liable to be set aside.

20.                  For the reasons recorded above, both the appeals are accepted with costs. The order of the District Forum is set aside.   - 

i)         Rs.28,564/- as surrender value to the appellant, as per the calculation furnished by the Counsel for the respondents/Opposite Parties with interest @ 9% w.e.f. 01.01.2013.

ii)        Rs.5,000/- as cost of litigation.

F.A. No.537 of 2013, titled as Manju Sharma Vs. 

21.                  In this appeal, the respondents/Opposite Parties  

i)       

ii)      

22.                  This order shall be complied with, by the respondents/Opposite Parties jointly and severally within 45 days, from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the same, failing which, it shall be liable to pay the aforesaid payable amount, with penal interest @ 12% p.a., to respective appellant/complainant from the date of its default till realization, besides payment of cost of litigation.

23.                  Certified Copies of this order be sent to the parties, free of charge.

24.                  The file be consigned to Record Room, after completion.

Pronounced.

03.02.2014  Sd/-

[JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER[RETD.]

                                                                                                                       [DEV RAJ]

Sd/-

^{[PADMA PANDEY]}

^MEMBER

cmg

APPEAL No. 536  

ARGUED BY:

Sh.Vikas Gupta, Advocate for the appellant.

Sh.Varun Chawla, Advocate for the respondents.

Dated __3^rd                                                                      Vide our detailed order of the even date recorded separately, this appeal alongwith the connected F.A.No.537/2013 are accepted with costs. The order of the District Forum is set aside. 

cmg

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

                            ^{UNIONTERRITORY,CHANDIGARH}

Manju Sharma wife of Sh.Rakesh Kumar Sharma, resident of House No.79, Sector 19-A,Chandigarh.

^{…..Appellant/Complainant}

1]      

2]      Airport Road, Yerawada, Pune 411006

           Appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

BEFORE:

ARGUED BY:

Sh.Vikas Gupta, Advocate for the appellant.

Sh.Varun Chawla, Advocate for the respondents.

PER PADMA PANDEY, MEMBER

                       Vide our separate detailed order of the even date, recorded in connectedVs. ^{, this appeal has also been accepted with costs. The order of the District Forum is set aside.} 

2.                Vs. 

3.                

4.                

Pronounced.

03.02.2014

Sd/-

 [JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER[RETD.]

                                                                                                                       [DEV RAJ]

Sd/-

^{[PADMA PANDEY]}

^MEMBER

 ^cmg