BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPTUES REDRESSAL FORUM, KAITHAL.
Complaint no.45/16.
Date of instt.: 09.02.2016.
Date of Decision: 07.11.2016.
Khajana Ram S/o Sh. Sadhu r/o Village Guhna, Tehsil and District Kaithal.
……….Complainant.
Versus
Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Co. Ltd. having Branch Office at Pehowa Chowk, Kaithal through its Branch Manager at Kaithal.
..……..Opposite Party.
COMPLAINT UNDER SEC. 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986.
Before: Sh. Jagmal Singh, President.
Sh. Rajbir Singh, Member.
Smt. Harisha Mehta, Member.
Present : Sh. S.K.Bindlish, Advocate for complainant.
Sh. C.S.Kala, Advocate for the opposite party.
ORDER
(JAGMAL SINGH, PRESIDENT).
The complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986, with the averments that he purchased a policy No.0131277235/0222457403 from the Op in the year 2009 with the promise given by the OP that upon payment of Rs.50,000/- (Rs.10,000/- per year), the Op would pay a sum of Rs.75,000/- as a whole to the complainant after the expiry of 5 years term. It is alleged that the complainant regularly deposited the aforesaid sum of Rs.50,000/- with the Op. It is further alleged that till date, the Op did not pay the sum of Rs.75,000/- to the complainant rather vide letter dt. 25.12.2014 issued by the Op to the complainant, a sum of Rs.19,387/- only was credited in the account of complainant instead of Rs.75,000/-. This way, the Op is deficient in service. Hence, this complaint is filed.
2. Upon notice, the opposite party appeared before this forum and filed written statement raising preliminary objections with regard to maintainability; cause of action; locus-standi; that the present complaint is not maintainable as the complainant has already surrendered the policy himself on 30.05.2014 and the amount of instalments paid by the complainant was returned back to the complainant at the time of surrender the policy as per terms and conditions of the policy. There is no deficiency in service on the part of answering Ops. On merits, the contents of complaint are denied and so, prayed for dismissal of complaint.
3. In support of his case, the complainant tendered in evidence affidavit Ex.CW1/A and documents Mark-C1 to Mark-C6 and closed evidence on 05.07.2016. On the other hand, the Op did not tender any evidence despite availing several opportunities, so, the evidence of Op was closed vide court order dt. 22.08.2016.
4. We have heard ld. counsel for both the parties and perused the case file carefully and minutely and have also gone through the evidence led by the parties.
5. From the pleadings and evidence of the parties, it is clear that the complainant had taken a policy No.0131277235/0222457403 from the Op in the year 2009 and the complainant had to pay Rs.10,000/- per year for a period of 5 years and upon payment of Rs.50,000/-, the Op had to pay a sum of Rs.75,000/- as a whole to the complainant after the expiry of 5 years term. The complainant alleges that he has regularly deposited the aforesaid amount of Rs.50,000/- with the Op. The complainant further alleged that inspite of receipt of total payment of Rs.50,000/- from the complainant, the Op has not paid the sum of Rs.75,000/-. The complainant further alleged that vide letter dt. 25.12.2014 issued by the Op, a sum of Rs.19,387/- was credited in the account of complainant instead of Rs.75,000/-. It is pertinent to mention here that at the time of arguments, the complainant moved an application stating therein that the Op has paid a sum of Rs.50,000/- to the complainant during the pendency of this case but has not paid the remaining amount of Rs.25,000/-. On the other hand, the Op contended that the complainant has already surrendered the policy himself on 30.05.2014 and the amount of instalments paid by the complainant were returned back to the complainant at the time of surrendering the policy as per terms and conditions of the policy. The Op further contended that the complainant has not deposited the premium regularly till 5 years. The Op further contended that the total surrender value of the complainant was Rs.29,385/- and out of which Rs.10,000/- were adjusted against an instalment which was lying in suspense account being unadjusted and the remaining amount of Rs.19,385/- was deposited in the account of complainant as surrender value. The Op further contended that during the pendency of this case, an amount of Rs.50,000/- has been paid to the complainant as is admitted by the complainant. The OP further contended that now nothing is due of the complainant against the Op.
6. From the facts and circumstances of the case, it is admitted by the complainant that Rs.19,387/- were credited in his account by the Op vide letter dt. 25.12.2014. As already stated above, the complainant has admitted that he received Rs.50,000/- from the Op during the pendency of this case. The complainant has placed four receipts Mark-C1 to Mark-C4 of Rs.10,000/- each on the file. So, the contention of Op that Rs.10,000/- were adjusted against an instalment which was lying in suspense account has force. In this way, the complainant has received the entire amount which was prayed by him in the complaint. Moreover, the complainant had received the amount of Rs.50,000/- from the Op during the pendency of the case without the permission of this Forum. In view of these circumstances, we are of the considered opinion that the complainant has failed to prove any deficiency on the part of Op.
7. Thus, in view of above discussion, we found no merit in the present complaint and accordingly, the same is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs. A copy of this order be sent to both the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced.
Dt.07.11.2016.
(Jagmal Singh),
President.
(Harisha Mehta), (Rajbir Singh),
Member. Member.
