District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission ,Faridabad.
Consumer Complaint No.569/2019.
Date of Institution: 22.11.2019.
Date of Order:14.06.2023.
Manoj Kumar Sharma s/o Shri B.D.Sharma, R/o House No. 1371, Sanjay colony, Sector-23, NIT, Faridabad, Haryana – 121001.
…….Complainant……..
Versus
1. Canara HSBC Oriental Bank of Commerce, Life Insurance Company Limited regd. Office:- Unit No. 208, 2nd floor, Kanchenjunga Building, 28, Barakhamba road, New Delhi, Delhi – 110 001.
Also at:
Corporate office: 2nd floor, Orchid Business Park, Sector-48, Sohna Road, Gurugram – 122018, Haryana through its Director/manager/partner/Authorized signatory.
2. Canara Bank, Faridabad SME Branch 2464, Faridabad, Haryana through its Director/manager/Authorized signatory.
3. Oriental Bank of Commerce, Head office:- Plot No.5, Sector-32, Gurugram, Haryana – 122002 (Near institutional area) Branch office:- Neelam Chowk, NIT, Faridabad, Haryana – 121002 through its Director/Manager/Authorized Signatory.
4. HSBC Insurance, Head office:- 2nd floor, Orchid Business Park, Sector-48, Sohna Road, Gurugram – 122018, Haryana through its Director/Manager/Authorized signatory.
…Opposite parties……
Complaint under section-12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986
Now amended Section 34 of Consumer protection Act 2019.
BEFORE: Amit Arora……………..President
Mukesh Sharma…………Member.
PRESENT: Shri Sandeep Yadav, counsel for the complainant.
Opposite parties Nos.1 & 2 ex-parte vide order dated 13.10.2021.
Shri Pankaj Sharma, counsel for opposite party No.3.
Opposite party No.4 ex-parte vide order dated 20.02.2020.
ORDER:
The facts in brief of the complaint are that the complainant was having saving bank account No. 2464101002091 with opposite party No2. The employee & manager of opposite party No.2 told to the complainant about the Canara HSBC Oriental Bank of Commerce Life Insurance Grow Smart Plan and they also told to the complainant that the said plan was safe, secure & protective and they also told to the complainant the opposite party No.1 was the joint venture of opposite parties Nos.2 to 4 and opposite parties also assured to complainant that in case the complainant was not satisfied with the said plan, then complainant can discontinue the said policy plan, then opposite parties would return the total amount whichever the complainant paid to the opposite parties after deducting the minimum charges. On the assurances of opposite parties, the complainant purchased the said plan from opposite party No.1 under policy No. 0019916620 and complainant provided his PAN card, statement of account No. 2464101002091 & other related documents to opposite party No.1 and opposite party No.1 issued the policy bond in favour complainant. The annual premium of the said policy was Rs.50,000/- and the total premium paying term was 10 years. The complainant was not satisfied with the said policy, so the complainant discontinued the said policy after informed the opposite parties Nos.1 & 2. After that the complainant requested to opposite parties several times to refund the amount whichever complainant had paid to opposite party No.1, but the opposite parties did not pay any heed to the legitimate requests of the complainant and in the month of February, 2019 complainant received a telephonic call from the customer care executive of opposite party NO.1 and the customer care executive of opposite party No.1 informed the complainant that opposite partyNo1 had transferred the amount of rs.120659/- in the bank account of complainant on 09.08.2016, but the complainant told to the customer care executive of opposite party No.1 that the complainant never received any amount, even single penny from the opposite parties and the complainant also requested to the customer care of opposite party No.1 that kindly refund the amount in complainant’s bank account, which was provided by the complainant to opposite party No.1 at the time of purchased the said policy from the opposite party, but the customer care executive also did not paid any heed to the legitimate request of the complainant. The complainant had sent a various e-mail to opposite party No.1 and requested to opposite party No.1 for transfer the specific amount in complainant’s bank account, which was given by the complainant to opposite party No.1 at the time of purchased the said policy NO. 0019916620 from the opposite party No.1, but the opposite party No.1 never replied to the complainant. The complainant sent legal notice dated 13.8.2019 to the opposite parties and opposite party No.1 replied to the legal notice of complainant and through reply dated 09.09.2019 opposite party No.1 seek two weeks time and after that opposite party No.1 again sent a reply dated 19.9.2019 to the counsel of the complaint and opposite party No.1 told through its through reply dated 19.09.2019 “opposite party No.1 transferred Rs.1,20,659.68 on 08.08.2016 towards the complainant’s Canara Bank Saving account No.xxxxxxxx2949 through NEFT” but the said Canara Bank saving account No.xxxxxxxx2949 was not the complainant’s bank account rather than complainant provided the bank account No. 2464101002091 to the opposite party No.1 at the time of purchased the said policy No. 0019916620 from opposite party No.1. The aforesaid act of opposite party amounts to deficiency of service and hence the complaint. The complainant has prayed for directions to the opposite parties to:
a) pay an amount of Rs.1,20,659/- to the complainant alongwith interest @ 24% p.a. from the date of due till actual realization of the said amount.
b) pay Rs. 50,000/- as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment .
c) pay Rs. 11,000 /-as litigation expenses.
2. Opposite parties Nos.1 & 2 put in appearance through counsel and filed written statement wherein Opposite parties Nos.1 & 2 refuted claim of the complainant and submitted that the policy in question was issued in favour of the complainant with risk commencement date being 23.11.2010, The complainant ahd paid two premiums towards the policy. The renewal premium due on 23.11.2012 was not received by the company despite several reminders and therefore, the company once again reminded the complainant for payment of the due premium. Complainant did not pay the premium for reasons mentioned in his complaint, which implies that premium was not paid knowingly and intentionally by the complainant. Due to non payment of premium, policy was terminated as per policy terms and conditions on November 23,2015 and a surrender value of Rs.117,948/- become payable to the complainant. Accordingly, a cheque bearing instrument No. 334775 dated November 26, 2015 of Rs.1,17,948.80 was sent at their client’s requested communication address. Thereafter the said surrender value alongwith accrued interest (Rs.1,20,659.68/-) was transferred into complainant’s bank account (as confirmed by the complainant’s bank) which was held with Canara Banka account (2039101012949 through NEFT by the company on August 08,2016. It was submitted that the complainant was required to pay the premium under the policy for a period of 10 years. The complainant paid only two annual premiums. The third premium fell due on 23.11.2012 which was not paid by the complainant. Therefore, the answering opposite parties reminded the complainant to pay the renewal premium vide its letter dated 25.12.2012, failing which the policy status would changes to premium discontinuance mode. However, despite receipt of the said letter the complainant failed to pay the premium therefore the policy was terminated on completion of lock period of 5 years i.e. on 23.2.2015. Thereafter, the surrender value of Rs.1,17,948.80/- was sent to the complainant through cheque bearing No.334775 dated 26.11.2015. However, the said cheque became stale Therefore, the surrender value alongwith accrued interest i.e. a sum of Rs.1,20,659.68 was transferred to the bank account of the complainant through NEFT on 08.08.2016. Thus after paying the surrender value no amount becomes payable to the complainant The surrender value which became payable to the complainant in 2015 on termination of policy was lying with the company in unclaimed funds as the surrender value cheque sent to the complainant was not realized. The complainant was constrained not to transfer the same in complainant’s bank account which was mentioned, in his proposal from as there was no proof submitted by the complainant towards his bank account number mentioned in the proposal form. In 2016, the company contacted Canara Bank and basis the complainant’s pancard number, Canara bank provided another bank account held in name of Manoj Kumar post which the company had transferred the amount in that bank account. This was again confirmed with Canara Bank in 2019 and reaffirmed vide their email dated 20.09.2019. Opposite parties Nos.1 & 2 denied rest of the allegations leveled in the complaint and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
3. Opposite party No.3 put in appearance through counsel and filed written statement wherein Opposite party No.3 refuted claim of the complainant and submitted that the above fact was already directed or indirectly admitted by the complainant in para No.5 of the complaint mentioned hereunder:
(a) Complainant admitted that complainant was having saving bank account No. 2464101002091 with opposite party No.2.
(b) The complainant admitted that employee or Manager of opposite party No.2 told the complainant about Canara bank HSBC Oriental Bank of Commerce Life Insurance Grow Smart Plan and told was a safe and secure and productive.
c) Complainant admitted that upon pursuance complainant purchased plan from opposite party No.1 under the policy No. 0019916620 and complainant provided his PAN card, statement of account No. 2464101002091.
d) Complainant admitted that opposite party No.1 issued policy bond in favour of complainant and the premium of policy was Rs.50,000/- and total premium paying term was10 years.
Opposite party No.3 was nowhere involved in any process being an independent body i.e nationalized bank in which public money was involved. Opposite party No.3 denied rest of the allegations leveled in the complaint and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
4. Registered notices was sent to opposite party No.4 on 16.01.2020 not received back served or unserved. Case called several times since morning. But none appeared on behalf of opposite party No.4 The period of one month had been elapsed. Therefore, opposite party No.4 was proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 20.02.2020.
5. The parties led evidence in support of their respective versions.
6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record on the file.
7. In this case the complaint was filed by the complainant against opposite parties – Canara HSBC Oriental Bank of Commerce with the prayer to a)pay an amount of Rs.1,20,659/- to the complainant alongwith interest @ 24% p.a. from the date of due till actual realization of the said amount. b) pay Rs. 50,000/- as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment . c) pay Rs. 11,000 /-as litigation expenses.
To establish his case the complainant has led in his evidence, Ex.CW1/A – affidavit of Manoj Kumar Sharma,, Ex.C1 (colly (OSR) - policy, Ex.C-2 – legal notice,, Ex.C-3 to C-10 – postal receipts, Ex.C-11 - reply to legal notice, WEx.C-12 – reply to legal notice dated 19.09.2019, Ex.C-13 (OSR ) – adhaar card,, Ex.C-14 (OSR) – letter,, Ex.C-15 (OSR) – Pan card, Ex.C-16(OSR)
Case had been called several times since morning but none appeared on behalf of opposite parties Nos.1 & 2 despite availing several opportunities. Hence, opposite parties Nos.1 & 2 were proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 13.10.2021.
Shri Pankaj Rana, counsel for opposite party No.3 has made a statement that reply already filed on behalf of opposite party No.3 be read as evidence on behalf of opposite party No.3. Therefore, evidence on behalf of opposite party NO.3 has been closed vide order dated 01.09.2021.
8. After going through the evidence led by the complainant as well as the opposite parties, it is an admitted fact that as per reply to legal notice dated 19.09.2019 vide Ex.C-12 in which it has been mentioned that an amount of Rs.1,20,659.68/- was transferred in complainant’s Canara Bank Account No.xxxxxxxxx2949 through NEFT by the company on August 08,2016. As per statement of account vide Ex.C-16(OSR) in which it has been mentioned A/c No. 2464101002091 and also given the cancelled cheque in page No. 55 of the evidence of opposite parties Nos.1 & 2 in which the account No. is the same. It is evident from statement of account vide Ex. C16 no transfer was made by the opposite party in the account of the complainant. As per evidence Ex.C1(colly) (OSR) in page No. 29 the account No. is mentioned as 2464101002091.
9. After going through the evidence led by the complainant, the Commission is of the opinion that it is amply proved that the account No. of the complainant is 2464101002091 and not xxxxxxxxx2949 mentioned in the legal notice vide Ex.C12. Hence, the deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties Nos. 1 & 2 have been proved. Opposite parties Nos.1 & 2 are directed to process the claim of the complainant as per the prayer of the complainant within 30 days from the date of receipt of the copy of order and pay the due amount to the complainant alongwith interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of filing of complaint till its realization. Opposite parties Nos. 1 & 2 are also directed to pay Rs.2200/- as compensation for causing mental agony & harassment alongwith Rs.2200/- as litigation expenses to the complainant. Compliance of this order be made within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. File be consigned to the record room.
Announced on: 14.06.2022 (Amit Arora)
President
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Faridabad.
(Mukesh Sharma)
Member
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Faridabad.
(Indira Bhadana)
Member
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Faridabad.
