Haryana

Sonipat

CC/313/2016

Varun Bansal - Complainant(s)

Versus

Branch Manager HDFC Bank Limited - Opp.Party(s)

Mannu Malik

16 Mar 2017

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

SONEPAT.

             

 

                             Complaint No.313 of 2016

                             Instituted on:10.08.2016                                       Date of order:16.03.2017

 

Varun Bansal son of Satpal Bansal, Nutri Herbals Pvt. Ltd., 50E Gandhi Nagar Jind, and r/o H.No.106 Sector 15 Sonepat.

 

…Complainant.

Versus

 

1.Branch Manager, HDFC Bank Ltd., L-203, Model Town Sonepat.

2.Branch Manager, HDFC Standard Life Insurance Company Ltd., Devender Dahiya CA Second Floor, above Vijaya Bank, Subhash Chowk, Sonepat.

3.Branch Manager, HDFC Standard Life Insurance Company Ltd., Ist Floor, above Hero Honda Showroom Shakuntla Bldg. Main Delhi Rohtak road, Rohtak.

4.The Managing Director/Chairman, Branch Manager, HDFC Standard Life Insurance Company Ltd., Corporate office, Trade star, 2^nd floor, A wind, Junction of Kondivita and MV road, Andheri Kurla road, Andheri East, Mumbai-400059.

                                            …Respondents.

 

COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 12 OF        

THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986

 

Argued by:Sh. Mannu Malik Adv. for complainant.

          Sh. RK Panchal, Adv. for respondent no.1.

         Sh. Joginder Kuhar Adv. for respondent no.2 to 4.

 

BEFORE    NAGENDER SINGH, PRESIDENT.

          PRABHA WATI, MEMBER.

          J.L. GUPTA, MEMBER.

 

O R D E R

 

          Complainant has filed the present complaint against the respondents alleging therein that the complainant has purchased one time paid policy from respondents no.2 to 4 and premium amount of Rs.50,000/- was paid by the complainant through respondent no.1 from his account on 28.5.2010.  The complainant has received a policy no.13698599 issued by the respondent no.2 to 4 effective from 30.5.2010 under the plan HDFC SL Endownment Champion Suvidha for the term of 15 years. Immediately thereafter the complainant has approached the respondent no.1 and told that he has not purchased the policy  and it has been issued to him wrongly. After the lapse of one year, the respondents no.2 to 4 started asking the complainant to deposit further premium of Rs.50,000/-.  The respondent no.1 has asked the complainant to deposit the amount of second premium of Rs.50,000/- with the respondents no.2 to 4 and thereafter there is no need to pay any amount and the complainant will be refunded the amount after expiry of 5 years with interest at the rate of 12% per annum.  On this assurance, the complainant again deposited Rs.50,000/- as premium in the year 2011 with the respondents no.2 to 4, but still the respondents no.2 to 4 are asking the complainant to deposit the amount continuously.  Now after the expiry of 5 years, the complainant has requested the respondents no.2 to 4 to refund the amount of Rs.one lakh alongwith interest, but the respondents no.2 to 4 issued a cheque of Rs.36010/- only which was later-on dishonoured and thereafter the said amount was transferred in the account of the complainant.  The complainant has also requested the respondents no.2 to 4 to pay the remaining amount after adjusting the amount of Rs.36010/-, but of no use and that amounts to a grave deficiency in service on the part of the respondents. So, he has come to this Forum and has filed the present complaint.

2.        The respondents no.1, 2, 3 and 4 have appeared through their respective counsel. The respondent no.1 and 2 to 4 have filed their separate written statement.

          The respondent no.1 in its written statement has submitted that the respondent no.1 never told the complainant regarding refund of the amount of the policy of the complainant.  It is the matter between the complainant & respondents no.2 to 4 who has issued the policy.  False allegations have been leveled by the complainant against the respondent no.1.

          The respondents no.2 to 4 have submitted in their written statement that the policy purchased by the complainant is unit linked policy. The respondents no.2 to 4 never received any complaint/query qua the policy in question from the complainant.  The policy documents were received by the complainant and the premium payment term of policy was 15 years.  No such request for cancellation of the policy within free look period has ever been received by the respondents no.2 to 4.  False and baseless allegations has been leveled by the complainant against the respondents no.2 to 4 and thus, prayed for the dismissal of the present complaint qua respondents no.2 to 4.

3.        We have heard the arguments advanced by the ld. Counsel for both the parties at length and we have also gone through the entire relevant material available on the case file carefully & minutely.

4.       Ld. Counsel for the complainant has submitted that the complainant has purchased one time paid policy from respondents no.2 to 4 and premium amount of Rs.50,000/- was paid by the complainant through respondent no.1 from his account on 28.5.2010.  The complainant has received a policy no.13698599 issued by the respondent no.2 to 4 effective from 30.5.2010 under the plan HDFC SL Endownment Champion Suvidha for the term of 15 years. Immediately thereafter the complainant has approached the respondent no.1 and told that he has not purchased the policy  and it has been issued to him wrongly. After the lapse of one year, the respondents no.2 to 4 started asking the complainant to deposit further premium of Rs.50,000/-.  The respondent no.1 has asked the complainant to deposit the amount of second premium of Rs.50,000/- with the respondents no.2 to 4 and thereafter there is no need to pay any amount and the complainant will be refunded the amount after expiry of 5 years with interest at the rate of 12% per annum.  On this assurance, the complainant again deposited Rs.50,000/- as premium in the year 2011 with the respondents no.2 to 4, but still the respondents no.2 to 4 are asking the complainant to deposit the amount continuously.  Now after the expiry of 5 years, the complainant has requested the respondents no.2 to 4 to refund the amount of Rs.one lakh alongwith interest, but the respondents no.2 to 4 issued a cheque of Rs.36010/- only which was later-on dishonoured and thereafter the said amount was transferred in the account of the complainant.  The complainant has also requested the respondents no.2 to 4 to pay the remaining amount after adjusting the amount of Rs.36010/-, but of no use and that amounts to a grave deficiency in service on the part of the respondents.

          Ld. Counsel for the respondent no.1 has submitted that the respondent no.1 never told the complainant regarding refund of the amount of the policy of the complainant.  It is the matter between the complainant & respondents no.2 to 4 who has issued the policy.  False allegations have been leveled by the complainant against the respondent no.1.

          Ld. Counsel for the respondents no.2 to 4 have submitted that the policy purchased by the complainant is unit linked policy. The respondents no.2 to 4 never received any complaint/query qua the policy in question from the complainant.  The policy documents were received by the complainant and the premium payment term of policy was 15 years.  No such request for cancellation of the policy within free look period has ever been received by the respondents no.2 to 4.  False and baseless allegations has been leveled by the complainant against the respondents no.2 to 4.

5.       After hearing learned counsel for both the parties at length and after going through the entire relevant records available on the case file very carefully, we are of the view that there is no dispute with regard to the deposit of Rs.one lakh by the complainant with the respondents. As per the complainant, the respondents no.2 to 4 has transferred the amount of Rs.36010/- in the account of the complainant.  In our view, the ends of justice would be fully met if some directions are given to the respondents no.2 to 4.  Accordingly, we hereby direct the respondents no.2 to 4 to further make the payment of Rs.55000/- (Rs.fifty five thousand) to the complainant in lumpsum, within a period of 60 days from the date of passing of this order, failing which, the above said amount shall fetch interest at the rate of 09% per annum from the date of passing of this order till its realization.

          With these observations, findings and directions, the present complaint stands allowed partly.

Certified copy of this order be provided to both

the parties free of costs.

 

 

(Prabha Wati) (J.L.Gupta)   (Nagender Singh-President)

Member         Member                DCDRF, Sonepat.

 

Announced: 16.03.2017