Date of Filing : 30.09. 2008
Date of Order : 12.01.2016.
DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL FORUM, CHENNAI(SOUTH)
2nd Floor, Frazer Bridge Road, V.O.C.Nagar, Park Town, Chennai-3
PRESENT: THIRU. B. RAMALINGAM M.A.M.L., : PRESIDENT
TMT. K.AMALA, M.A. L.L.B., : MEMBER I
DR. T.PAUL RAJASEKARAN, M.A ,D.Min.PGDHRDI, AIII,BCS : MEMBER II
C.C.NO.410/2008
TUESDAY THIS 12TH DAY OF January 2016
A. Arulrayan,
Plot No.24, 2nd Street,
T & A Colony,
Mappadu Post,
Salaiyur (Via),
Chennai 600 073. ..Complainant
..Vs..
The City Financial Consumer Finance India Ltd.,
Sinthur Fancy Plaza,
New No.117, Old No.346/1,
Ground Floor, Bathiyan Salai,
Egmore, Chennai 600 008. ..Opposite party .
For the Complainant : Party in person
For the Opposite party : M/s. Kanth & Associates.
Complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986. The complaint is filed seeking direction against the opposite party to pay a sum of Rs.3,981/- with interest and also to pay sum of Rs.15,00,000/- as compensation and Rs.10,000/- as cost of the complaint to the complainant.
ORDER
THIRU. T.PAUL RAJASEKARAN :: MEMBER-II
The case of the complainant is briefly as follows:-
1. The complainant states that he availed a personal loan from the opposite party for a sum of Rs.35,000/- on 9.2.2008 and the opposite party had deducted Rs.3,981/- towards insurance premium for covering the risk of the complainant under Life Shield single premium policy to be taken with Max Life Insurance Company. When the complainant approached the opposite party for the proof of remittance of the insurance premium to the insurer it is alleged that neither the receipt nor the policy was given to the complainant. Hence the opposite party had committed deficiency in service for which caused mental agony and hardship to the complainant. As such the complainant sought for claims for a sum of Rs.3,981/- with interest and also to pay sum of Rs.15,00,000/- as compensation and also to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- as cost of the complaint to the complainant.
Written version of opposite party is as follows:
2. It denies all the averments and allegation contained in the complaint except those that are specifically admitted herein. It is denied that knowledge of the deduction of Rs.3,981/- for Life Shield Insurance Plan by the opposite party at the time of sanction of the loan vide Loan agreement. The opposite party stated that the CCFIL had provided the loan to the complainant along with the Life Shield Insurance Plan to the complainant at the time of sanctioning of the loan vide loan agreement only on the request made by the complainant and the same is evident from the declaration duly signed by the complainant. It is further submitted that all the papers related to the Life Shied Insurance Plan including the Insurance receipt of the deducted amount were already handed over to the complainant at the time of disbursal of the loan amount. It is denied that the complainant is entitled to be compensated by CCFIL for causing mental agony and loss. Hence there is no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party. Therefore this compliant is liable to be dismissed.
3. Complainant has filed his Proof affidavit and Ex.A1 to Ex.A4 were marked on the side of the complainant. Proof affidavit of Opposite party is filed and Ex.B1 filed on the side of the opposite party
4. The points that arise for consideration are as follows:-
1) Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party?
- Whether the complainant is entitled to the reliefs asked for?.
5. POINTS 1 & 2 :
Perused the complaint filed by the complainant and his proof affidavit and documents Ex.A1 to Ex.A4 were marked on the side of the complainant. Written version filed by the opposite party and document Ex.B1 marked on the side of the opposite party and also considered the written arguments of complainant and opposite party.
6. The complainant availed a personal loan from the opposite party (City financial Consume Finance India limited) a sum of Rs.35,000/- on 9.2.2008 and the opposite party had deducted Rs.3,981/- towards insurance premium for covering the risk of the complainant under Life Shield single premium policy to be taken with Max Life Insurance Company. When the complainant approached the opposite party for the proof of remittance of the insurance premium to the insurer it is alleged that neither the receipt nor the policy was given to the complainant. The complainant had given a declaration to the opposite party for loan reference No.41686784 (Ex.B1) which reveals that the opposite party is only the facilitator of this scheme for on behalf the insured member and in para no.6 of the declaration states that “this Life Shield Insurance Plan is a Group Life Insurance Cover and the payment of the premium is only for the said policy and not for any other purpose.” The complainant having paid the loan amount but the opposite party failed to provide the evidence of remittance of premium paid to the insurer for the amount deducted from his loan account.
7. Both complainant and the opposite party have filed their proof affidavit and documents which proves that an amount of Rs.3,981/- was deducted from the complainant’s account as insurance premium and the same was not remitted to the insurer. The opposite party neither produced the document for the remittance made by them nor provide the details of policy number period of risk coverage, type of policy whether its term insurance or endowment insurance or any other insurance provided by the insurer which was not submitted to this forum. As a facilitator the opposite partly should not keep the insurance premium under their custody which is against the law. Hence we observe that the non production of evidence of insurance details clearly indicates it is unfair trade practice made by the opposite party while granting the loan and also deficiency of service. It is obligatory on the part of opposite party / bank having deducted the premium they should have remitted the same to the insurer and provide the evidence called by the complainant.
8. Hence we are of the considered view that the opposite party has not provided sufficient evidence to this forum it is directed to pay Rs.3,981/- along with interest at the rate of 9% p.a. from date of complaint i.e. 30.9.2008 to till the date of payment and also to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- as just and reasonable compensation and also to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- as litigation charges to the complainant and as such the points 1 & 2 are answered in favour of the complainant.
In the result, the complaint is partly allowed. The opposite party is directed to pay Rs.3,981/- (Rupees three thousand nine hundred and eighty one only) along with interest at the rate of 9% p.a. from date of complaint i.e. 30.9.2008 to till the date of payment and also to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) towards compensation and also to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) as litigation charges to the complainant within six weeks from the date of this order.
Dictated directly by the Member-II to the Assistant, transcribed and computerized by her, corrected by the Member-II and pronounced by us in the open Forum on this the 12th day of January 2016.
MEMBER-I MEMBER-II PRESIDENT.
Complainant’s side documents :
Ex.A1- 9.2.2008 - Copy of receipt.
Ex.A2- 18.2.2008 - Copy of Loan amount interest rate.
Ex.A3- 13.9.2008 - Copy of letter by the complainant to the opposite party
Ex.A4- 10.3.2008 - Copy of receipts.
Opposite parties’ side documents:
Ex.B1- - - Copy of Life Shied Insurance Plan.
MEMBER-I MEMBER-II PRESIDENT.
