Tamil Nadu

South Chennai

CC/328/2019

Mr.Arokiyadass - Complainant(s)

Versus

Bharti AXA Life Insurance Company Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

M/s.S.P.Kumaran

06 Apr 2023

ORDER

  Date of Complaint Filed:19.12.2019

  Date of Reservation     :13.03.2023

  Date of Order              :06.04.2023

          DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

CHENNAI (SOUTH), CHENNAI-3.

 

PRESENT: TMT. B. JIJAA, M.L.,                                           : PRESIDENT

                    THIRU. T.R. SIVAKUMHAR, B.A., B.L.,           :  MEMBER  I 

                    THIRU. S. NANDAGOPALAN., B.Sc., MBA.,    : MEMBER II

               

CONSUMER COMPLAINT No.328/2019

 THURSDAY,THE 6^th DAY OF APRIL 2023

Mr.Arokiyadass,

S/o.Arulsamy,

Old No.3/357, New No.3/444,

S.S.R. Colony,

Pallipalayam Via,

Agraharam Post,

Kumarapalayam Taluk,

Namakkal District 638008.                                               .. Complainant.

-Vs-

The General Manager,

Bharti AXA Life Insurance Company Ltd,

No.58, L.B. Road, Indira Nagar,

Adyar, Chennai – 600 020.                                             .. Opposite Party.

 

* * * * *

 

Counsel for the Complainant         : M/s. S.P.Kumanan, G. Cheran

 

Counsel for Opposite Party            : Exparte on 05.02.2020

 

On perusal of records and upon treating the written arguments as oral arguments on endorsement made by the Complainant, we delivered the following:

ORDER

Pronounced by Member-I, Thiru. T.R. Sivakumhar., B.A., B.L.,

 (i) The Complainant has filed this complaint as against the Opposite Party under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and prays to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards the Insurance Policy No.501-8228253 paid by the Complainant and to pay a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- towards mental agony and litigation expenses suffered by the Complainant.

I.  The averments of Complaint in brief are as follows:-

1.     The Complainant was contacted by one Arun Prasad, employee of the Opposite Party over phone a year ago for availing house loan, as he was interested in need of housing loan he had agreed for the proposal of the said employee and at the said he was employed in a private Company at Coimbatore. The said person had assured for loan to the tune of Rs.20,00,000/- for purchase of a house and also for construction of a house and sought for 3 years bank statement, Income Tax Returns, salary slip and additional proof, Pan card and informed that only on satisfaction of the documents the loan would be sanctioned. And it was informed that a sum of Rs.20,000/- or 22,000/- per month to the Opposite Party towards repayment of the loan. Thereafter he had approached the Opposite Party where he come to know that due to his age being 70 he has to take insurance policy in his name from them and had also informed that for availing loan he should have taken insurance policy for a sum of Rs.1 Lakh. As claimed he had submitted all his required documents and contacted the Opposite Party for availing loan facility, at which time he was informed that all the loan formalities has been completed and yet to given and to his shock and surprise he was asked to issue cheque for Rs. 1 Lakh for sanctioning the loan. But without his consent the Opposite Party had issued an Insurance policy in his name bearing No.510-8228253 and also issued a receipt in his name, as did not asked for any policy. As it was informed earlier by the Opposite Party that only after taking policy for Rs.1 Lakh he could obtain loan without fail.As no other alternative by pledging his jewels he had sent a cheque bearing 00023 dated 19.11.2018 for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- to the Opposite Party through the above said person, namely, Arun Prasad and the said cheque was encashed and only thereafter the Opposite Party had told that citing his age as 70 years the loan would be sanctioned in his son’s name, which was refused by him and immediately the Opposite Party had refused to grant loan in his favour and failed to fullfill their assurances, he do not want to get loan from the Opposite Party and approached the Opposite Party several times to get back his policy amount, which the Opposite Party failed and neglected to pay the insurance policy amount or to sanction loan in his name. He had met the Opposite Party’s officials who made him to run from pillar to post but the policy amount was not refunded, hence he was constrained to send a Letter dated 20.10.2019 to the Opposite Party and thereafter had contacted the Opposite Party periodically, went in vain, which resulted him with loss, mental agony, stress, strain, physical and mental sufferings due to non-cooperation of the Opposite Party, for which the Opposite Party is liable to compensate him. Further he had issued a Legal Notice dated 25.11.2019 to the Opposite Party and called them to repay the insurance amount of Rs.1,00,000/- with compensation, in spite of receipt of the same, the Opposite Party had not responded. Hence the Complaint.

II. The Opposite Party set ex parte:

        Notice was sent to the Opposite Parties and was duly served to the Opposite Parties. Despite the notice being served to the Opposite Party  was failed to appear before this Commission either in person or by  Advocate on the hearing date and not filed any written version on their side.  Hence the Opposite Party was called absent and set ex-parte. Subsequently, the case was proceeded to be heard on merits.

III. The Complainant has filed his proof affidavit and Written Arguments, in support of his claim in the complaint and has filed documents which are marked as Ex.A-1 to A-6.

IV. Points for Consideration:-

 

1. Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party?

2. Whether the Complainant is entitled for reliefs claimed?

3. To what other reliefs the Complainant is entitled to?

POINT NO. 1 :-

2.     On reading of the complaint and the exhibits marked in support of the complaint, though the Complainant had made inconsistent averments in the complaint, the contentions of the Complainant was that he was contacted by one Arun Prasad, the employee of the Opposite Party for availing housing loan and the said person had assured to get Housing loan to the tune of Rs.20 Lakhs from the Opposite Party and collected all his required documents for loan  sanction and informed the repayment towards the said Loan would be Rs.20,000/- or Rs.22,000/- per month, thereafter the Complainant was informed by the Opposite Party to take an insurance policy for Rs.1 lakh from them for availing housing loan and even after taking insurance policy for  a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- by way cheque issued in favour of the Opposite Party through the said Arun Prasad, the loan amount assured was not sanctioned by the Opposite Party on the pretext of his age, he being 70 years of age and the loan could be sanctioned only in his son’s name.

3.     On discussions made above and considering the facts and circumstances of the case, it would be clear that though the Complainant had contended that he was induced to issue a cheque for a sum of Rs.1 Lakh towards Insurance Policy taking advantage that the Complainant was in need of Housing Loan, the Complainant has to prove the deficiency of service committed by the Opposite Party, but failed to prove the same. Further, the Complainant had neither impleaded the said Arun Prasad alleged to have been the employee of the Opposite Party nor had filed any substantive evidence to prove his claim against the Opposite Party, as the Exhibits A-1 to A-5 is in no way prove the alleged deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party. Therefore this Commission is of the considered view that there is no deficiency of service committed by the Opposite Party. Accordingly Point No.1 is answered against the Complainant.

Point Nos.2 and 3 :-

4.     As discussed and decided Point No.1 against the Complainant, the Complainant is not entitled for the reliefs claimed in the complaint and hence not entitled for any other relief/s. Accordingly Point Nos. 2 and 3 are answered.

In the result the complaint is dismissed. No Costs.

Dictated to Steno-Typist, transcribed and typed by her, corrected and pronounced by us in the Open Commission, on 6^th of  April 2023.

 

 

S. NANDAGOPALAN               T.R. SIVAKUMHAR                    B.JIJAA

      MEMBER II                         MEMBER I                        PRESIDENT

List of documents filed on the side of the Complainant:-

Ex.A1		Policy Bond/Document
Ex.A2	19.11.2018	Cheque Leaf & Courier Slip
Ex.A3	27.11.2018	First Premium Receipt
Ex.A4	20.10.2019	Complainant letter to Opp. Party with Ack. Card
Ex.A5	25.11.2019	Legal notice of the Complainant along with Ack. Card
Ex.A6		Aadhar card of the Complainant

 

List of documents filed on the side of the Opposite Party:-

NIL 

 

S. NANDAGOPALAN               T.R. SIVAKUMHAR                    B.JIJAA

      MEMBER II                          MEMBER I                            PRESIDENT