BEFORE THE KARNATAKA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BENGALURU (ADDL. BENCH)
DATED THIS THE 17th DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2023
PRESENT
MR. RAVISHANKAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER
MRS. SUNITA CHANNABASAPPA BAGEWADI, MEMBER
APPEAL NO.1448/2019
1. The Manager, CPC,
Chitradurga H.O.
Chitradurga, Pin-577501
.. Appellant/s
2. Assistant Director (RPLI)
South Karnataka Region,
Second Floor, GPO Building,
Bengaluru – 560001
3. Superintendent of Post offices,
Chitradurga Division,
Chitradurga
(By Sri.B.Pramod, Advocate)
V/s
C.Erappa, S/o Chikkappa,
Aged about 57 years, …Respondent/s
Agriculturist, R/o Thurebalu,
Bheemasamdura, Hireguntanuru,
Hobli, Chitradurga Taluk
(By Smt.S.S.Mulimani, Advocate)
O R D E R
BY SRI.RAVISHANKAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER
The Appellant/Opposite party has preferred this appeal against the order dt.26.07.2019 passed in CC.No.316/2019 by the District Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission at Chitradurga which directed them to pay a sum of Rs.28,058/- along with the interest @9% per annum along with Rs.10,000/- towards mental agony and Rs.5,000/- towards litigation expenses and submits that the complainant filed a complaint before the District Commission alleging deficiency in service in not refunding the premium amount.
2. The District Commission after trial had allowed the complaint and directed these appellants to pay the above said amount. In fact, the complainant has failed to pay the premium as per the terms and conditions of the policy and as per the applicable rule the complainant is not entitled for any benefit much less a return of the premium amount paid with interest. As the complainant had failed to perform his part of obligation, the policy stood void and direction to pay the amount of premium paid by the complainant is contrary to the terms and conditions of the policy. It is the obligation of the complainant to pay the quarterly premiums till the maturity of the policy. The complainant was required and liable to pay premium for 36 months to get some benefits under the policy. The complainant has not even paid the premium amounts upto 36 months; therefore the complainant is not entitled for a return of the premium amount and any other benefits. Hence, there is no deficiency in service on the part of this Opposite Parties as alleged in the complaint hence, prays for dismissal of the complaint by setting aside the order passed by the District Commission.
3. Heard both parties
4. On perusal of the certified copy of the order, memorandum of appeal, it is an admitted facts that the complainant had obtained a policy bearing No.R-KT-SK-EA-282731 for a sum assured amount of Rs.1.00 lakh on 20-9-2007 and he paid the premium of Rs.2,338/- till June, 2010 in total the complainant had paid a sum of Rs.28,056/-. Thereafterwards, he made requisition to these appellants in the year 2010 for refund of the premium amount since he was not able to pay subsequent premiums due to his financial problem, but instead of refunding the said amount, these appellants/OPs had wrote a letter dated 23.10.2018 stating that the policy was not completed 36 months and it was only paid up to May, 2010. Hence they are not able to pay the amount and shown their inability to pay the amount paid towards the policy.
5. Aggrieved by the said, the complainant had approached the District Commission alleging deficiency in service and claimed for refund of the said amount. After trial, the District Commission allowed the complaint and directed these appellants to pay premium amount paid towards policy along with 9% interest per annum and Rs.10,000/- towards mental agony and Rs.5,000/- litigation expenses.
6. The order passed by the District Commission is in accordance with law; we noticed that the complainant had paid premium towards policy from 29-08-2007 till June, 2010 amounting to Rs.28,056/-. Thereafterwards the complainant due to his financial problems, requested for refund of the amount. The appellants could have paid the premium amount after deducting the surrender chargers, instead of that they have refused to pay the amount, for the reasons that the premium amount was not paid up to three years (36 months). Here we noticed that the complainant almost paid policy for 33 months, the appellant could have exercising their power have paid the amount after deducting the certain amount towards surrender of the policy. Instead of that, they have totally rejected the claim. We found the order passed by the order passed by the District Commission does not require any interference. We do not find any valid reasons to reject the claim of the complainant. As such the appeal is dismissed and accordingly, we proceed to pass the following:-
O R D E R
The appeal is dismissed. No order as to cost.
The impugned order dated 26-7-2019 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chitradurga in CC.No.316/2019 is confirmed.
The amount in deposit shall be transmitted to the concerned District Consumer Commission to pay the same to the complainant.
Send a copy of this order to both parties as well as concerned District Consumer Commission.
Member Judicial Member
