Smt. Sahana Ahmeb Basu, Member.
This is an application u/s.12 of the C.P. Act, 1986.
The case of the complainant, in short, is that being allured by the Agents of the O.Ps. the complainant incepted an insurance policy being Nos.00171093 and 00176422 with one time policy payment of Rs.3,00,000/- for a period of three years and paid the said amount vide cheque Nos.070471 for Rs.1,50,000/- and 849812 dated 30/06/2009 for Rs.1,50,000/- of S.B.I. respectively. Accordingly, on completion of said three years the complainant deposited both the original policy documents and requested for refund of his invested money together with a letter dated 17/05/2013. In spite of various correspondences and requests as well as service of legal notice dated 20/09/2017 upon the O.Ps., the O.Ps. did not refund his invested money. Hence, finding no other alternative, the complainant has approached before this Forum for redressal.
O.Ps.-1 and 2 have entered their appearance to contest the case by filing a joint W.V. contending inter alia that as per clause-4.4 of the subject policy i.e. Future Guarantee ULIP terms and conditions categorically states that no part of the 1st year premiums would be allocated to units. Since the complainant has paid only the first premium amounts for the subject policies, no part of the said premiums have been allocated to the units and as such the subject policies have not acquired any fund value, whether under clause-6.1.1 of the Future Guarantee ULIP terms and conditions or otherwise. Further case of the O.Ps.-1 and 2 is that complainant had filed a complaint being No.CC/97/2017 before this Ld. Forum which was disposed of on 31/08/2017 wherein the Ld. Forum was pleased to observe that “the complainant, however, reserved the right to get any deducted sum against the policies if permissible under the terms and conditions of the subject policies from the O.P.- insurance company.” Complainant has filed this complaint on the same subject matter of the earlier case i.e. CC/97/2017 which was already been disposed of on 31/08/2017. Moreover, complainant has failed to effectuate service of notices upon O.Ps.-3 and 3 and all on a sudden by filing a petition on affidavit has prayed for exclusion of O.Ps.-3 and 4 from the instant case without showing any cogent reason. The specific case of the O.Ps.-1 and 2 is that the complainant has claimed on affidavit that in CC/97/2017 Ld. Forum had given a direction for settlement of amount on O.Ps.-1 and 2, which is not true at all, in view of the judgement dated 31/08/2018 of CC/97/2017. Thus, the contesting O.Ps. have prayed for dismissal of the instant consumer complaint.
Notices were sent upon the O.Ps.-3 and 4 but no S/R are received and the complainant could not take steps against O.Ps-3 and 4. On 22/05/2018, by filing a petition, the complainant prayed for expunging the names of O.Ps.-3 and 4. After giving due consideration to the impugned petition as well as the W.O. filed by the O.Ps.-1 and 2, this Forum vide its Order No.14 Dated 20/08/2018 expunged the names of the O.Ps.-3 and 4 from proceedings of the instant consumer complaint.
Point for Decision
- Is the instant complaint barred by res judicata ?
- Whether the O.Ps. are deficient in rendering their service ?
- Whether O.Ps. are indulged in unfair trade practice ?
- Is the complainant entitled to get relief or reliefs as prayed for ?
Decision with Reasons
Point No.-1.
Both parties have tendered evidence through affidavit and replied to the questionnaire set forth by their adversaries. Both parties have also filed BNAs.
Fact remains that the complainant purchased two insurance policies being Nos.00171093 and 00176422 respectively and the policy amount were Rs.1,50,000/- each. It is true that on completion of three years complainant approached the insurer to refund the maturity amount and also sent the original insurance policies to the O.Ps./Insurer.
It is also true fact that O.Ps. refused to refund the amount to the complainant as per clause-4.4 of the terms and conditions of the policy document where it is categorically stated that no part of the 1st year premiums would be allocated to units. Since the complainant had paid merely first premium amounts under the subject policies, hence no part of the said premium had been allocated to the units and hence the subject policies had not acquired any fund value.
It is not in dispute that after failure of negotiation the complainant had filed a complaint being No. CC/97/2017 against the O.Ps. for refund of above amount with interest and penalty. The said complaint case was dismissed on contest against the O.Ps. with the observation that “The Complainant, however, reserves the right to get any deducted sum against the policies, if permissible under the terms and conditions of the subject policies from the O.P.- Insurance Company.”
It is an admitted fact true that complainant’s former case being No. CC/97/2017, between the same parties had been decided and became final, so that the parties are not vexed twice over the self same issues.
The aims of Section-11 of C.P.C. is to prevent multiplicity of the proceedings and accords finality to an issue, which directly and substantially had arisen in the former suit between the same parties or their privies, had been decided and became final, so that the parties are not vexed twice over. Vexatious litigation would be put an end to and the valuable time of the court is saved. It is based on public policy as well as private justice. It applies to all judicial proceedings whether civil or otherwise. It equally applies to quasi-judicial proceedings other than civil court – Sulochana Vs. Narayanan (1994) 2 SCC 14.
The object and purport of the principle of res judicata is to uphold the rule of conclusiveness of judgement, as to the points decided earlier of fact, or of law, or of fact and law, in every subsequent suit between the same parties. The principle envisages that a judgement of a court of concurrent jurisdiction directly upon a point would create a bar as regards a plea between the same parties – Swami Atmananda Vs. Sri Ramkrishna Tabovan (2005) 10 SCC 51, AIR 2005 SC 2392.
In view of the above discussion, the instant complaint is barred by res judicata.
Points No.-2 to 4.
In view of the observation during discussion over the Point No.-1, the remaining points cannot be considered as in any event the complainant is not entitled to get any relief as prayed for.
In result, the case fails.
Hence,
Ordered
That the complaint case be and the same is dismissed on contest against O.Ps.-1 and 2 being barred by principle of res judicata.
No order as to costs.
