Haryana

StateCommission

A/336/2017

AVIVA LIFE INSURANCE CO. - Complainant(s)

Versus

BALRAJ SINGH - Opp.Party(s)

NITESH SINGHI

27 Sep 2018

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                               

                                      First Appeal No.336 of 2017

                                                          Date of Institution: 22.03.2017                                             Date of Decision:27.09.2018

 

1.      Aviva Life Insurance Company India Ltd., Head office, Aviva Tower, Sector Road, Opp. Golf Course, DLF Phase V, Sector-43, Gurugram-122003.

 

2.      Aviva Life Insurance Company India Ltd., Regd. Office, 2^nd Floor, Prakashdeep Building 7, Tolstoy Marg, New Delhi110001.

3.      The Branch Manager, Aviva Life Insurance Company Ltd., Office at Hisar, District Hisar.

…..Appellants

Versus

 

1.      Balraj Singh son of Sh. Telu Ram, R/o House No.591, New Housing Board, Colony, Barnala Road, Sirsa.

…..Respondent

 

2.      Lokesh Kaushik, authorized agent, Aviva Life Insurance Company Ltd., at Sirsa, District Sirsa, now resident of Ashok Vihar, Bunkar Colony, A-43, New Delhi.

          …Performa Respondent

 

CORAM:             Mr.Ram Singh Chaudhary, Judicial  Member

                              Mrs. Manjula, Member.

         

Present:-             Mr.Nitesh Singhi, Advocate for the appellants.

                             Mr. Madan Jassal, Advocate for respondent No.1.

                             (Name of respondent No.2 is deleted from the array of respondents vide order dated 22.09.2017)

                            

                  

O R D E R

 

RAM SINGH CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER

 

 

1.                Delay in filing the appeal is hereby condoned for the reasons mentioned in the application filed for condonation of delay.

2.                As per complainant, he purchased two insurance policies bearing No.10090111 & 10090137 from opposite parties and paid a sum of Rs.99,594/- and Rs.41,058/-, respectively to the opposite parties (in short ‘O.Ps’). It was alleged that O.Ps have failed to deliver the original policies to the complainant. He made several requests to the O.Ps and on 01.10.2014 O.Ps. sent the abovesaid policies, but complainant was not satisfied with policies and returned the same on 09.10.2014. Thereafter, he approached the O.Ps. many times, but no satisfactory reply was given. It was further alleged that O.Ps cancelled his policy No.10090137 vide letter dated 21.10.2014 under Free Look Period and agreed to refund the total amount paid against this policy after deduction of IRDA mandate free look charges, but failed to refund the amount paid by him in lieu of cancelled policy No.10090111 despite so many requests. Thus, there was deficiency in service on the part of O.Ps.

3.               Upon notice O.P No.4 did not appear before learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Sirsa (in short ‘District Forum’)  despite issuance of summons through registered post and was proceeded against ex-parte.

4.                Upon notice O.Ps No.1 to 3 appeared and taking plea that the complainant himself proposed for insurance policies bearing Nos.10090111 & 10090137 and the same was issued with the date of commencement as December, 2013 and yearly premiums amounting to Rs.98,101/- and Rs.39,827/-. It was further submitted that the complainant had paid only one premium amounting to Rs.98,101/- and Rs.39,827/- and failed to pay the regular premiums due in December, 2014 and onwards, hence the policy was lapsed, but he never raised any objection with regard to  the policy and did not give any written notice to the O.Ps and did not return the original policy bonds for cancellation of policy. Thus, there was no deficiency in service on the part of O.Ps and requested for dismissal of the complaint.

5.                After hearing both the parties, learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Sirsa allowed the complaint vide impugned order dated 14.10.2016 and directed as under:-

“Thus, as a sequel of above discussion, we allow the present complaint and direct the opposite parties to refund the amount of Rs.99,594/- deposited by the complainant as premium against policy No.10090111 alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from the date of applying for cancellation of the policy i.e. 09.10.2014 till actual realization. The opposite parties are directed to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- as compensation for harassment including litigation expenses.”

6.                Feeling aggrieved therefrom, O.Ps No.1 to 3 have preferred this appeal.

7.                The arguments have been advanced by Sh.Nitesh Singhi, learned counsel for the appellants as well as Sh. Madan Jassal, learned counsel for respondent No.1. With their kind assistance the entire records had been properly perused and examined.

8.                The basic and foremost contention which has been raised by learned counsel for appellants that inspite of the facts that all the documents made available to the counsel, who had conducted the case before learned District Forum, but as to why the documents had not been tendered in the evidence and as a result thereof, complaint was allowed. Similarly, learned counsel for appellant filed an application before this Commission for tendering the documents in the form of additional evidence. Finally, it has been prayed that only one opportunity may be afforded to the appellants and the complainant may be referred back to learned District Forum to decide the matter afresh. However, complainant may be burdened by way of costs.

9.                It has been argued by learned counsel for respondent (hereinafter referred as complainant) that once the sufficient opportunities have been afforded to the present appellant, who are O.Ps. before learned District Forum, evidence had not been led and the complaint has been decided on merits. As such there are no circumstances which could be considered for remanded back the complaint and the appeal is devoid of merits and may be dismissed.

10.              Considering the contentions raised by learned counsel for appellants and respondent No.1 as well as after going through the record of learned District Forum, it is true that no oral or documentary evidence has been led before learned District Forum by the present appellants inspite of the fact that sufficient opportunities were allowed to the appellants to led evidence. However, without going on the merits of the case as well as conduct of the counsel who had appeared before learned District Forum, it is true that in order to adjudicate the matter on merits the same technicalities or the other respective circumstances are of no consequence. It would be appropriate that the complaint is remanded back to learned District Forum with the directions that only one opportunity would be afforded to the appellants (O.Ps before learned District Forum) and would conclude the entire evidence subject to payment of Rs.20,000/- as of costs. In case the appellants failed to conclude the entire evidence, in that eventuality, the evidence of appellants deemed to be closed. The complaint is remanded back to learned District Forum with the direction to the parties to appear before learned District Forum on 22.11.2018. Cost will be paid before District Forum by the appellants. Original record be remanded back to the District Forum.

11.              Statutory amount of Rs.25,000/- deposited at the time of filing the appeal be refunded to the appellants against proper receipt and identification in accordance with rules.

 

 

September 27th, 2018               Manjula                                    Ram Singh Chaudhary                                                Member                                    Judicial Member                                                          Addl.Bench                              Addl.Bench                             

R.K.