STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION OF TELANGANA :
At HYDERABAD
FA 74 of 2016
AGAINST
CC No. 37 of 2015, District Forum I, Hyderabad
Between :
The Manager,
Shriram Life Insurance Company Private Limited
Ameerpet Branch
Rahmath Commercial complex, 2nd floor,
Hyderabad. .. Appellant/opposite party
And
Dandu Krishna Murthy Raju,
S/o D. Venkataraju,
R/o H.No. 8-3-167/30, Flat No. 201.
Erragadda, Hyderabad – 500018 .. Respondent/complainant
Counsel for the Appellant : M/s. K. Rajeswara Rao
Counsel for the Respondent : Party-in – person
Coram :
Honble Sri Justice B. N. Rao Nalla … President
And
Sri Patil Vithal Rao … Member
Monday, the Second Day of April
Two Thousand Eighteen
Oral order : ( per Hon’ ble Sri Justice B.N.Rao Nalla, Hon’ble President )
***
1) This is an appeal filed under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act by the opposite party praying this Commission to set aside the impugned order dated 25.01.2016 made in CC 37 of 2015 on the file of the DISTRICT FORUM I, Hyderabad
2) For the sake of convenience, the parties are described as arrayed in the complaint before the District Forum.
3). The case of the complainant, in brief, is that he obtained a policy bearing No. LN 070900002767 dated 28.01.2009 got units partial withdrawal on 20.03.2013 based on units allocation statement from the guardian found of Rs.1,08,000/- and maximum found Rs.1,13,750/- totaling of Rs.2,21,750/-realized but the company paid only Rs.2,12,880/- by HDFC Bank Cheque dated 23.03.2013. Balance units as final withdrawal and encashed on 20.06.2013 but the company unlawfully deducted Rs.4,691.90 against the contract which must be refundable with 12% interest from 20.06.2013. He sustained loss of Rs.10,000/- for keeping Rs. 2,00,000/- in abeyance from 20.01.2012 to 15.02.2013 and hence he is entitled to the same with 12% interest from 20.01.2012. The opposite party unlawfully imposed Rs.3,980.39 ps., in 2010 over mortality purchases and hence the same shall be refunded along with 12% interest and 706.02 as Service Tax and mortality charges. He is entitled to Rs.521/- towards the administrative charges on lapsed for ever the life risk made by the opposite party is unlawfully along with interest @ 12% pa. Hence the complaint to direct the opposite party to refund an amount of Rs.4,691.90 with interest @ 12% pa 20.06.2013, to pay RS.10,000/- for keeping Rs. 2 lakhs in abeyance, to refund Rs.3,980.39 & Rs.706.02 with 12% interest from respective dates for mortality purchases and service tax respectively and Rs.521/- towards administrative charges with interest @ 12% pa,. to pay compensation of Rs.50,000/- for fraudulent activity of the company intentionally and costs of Rs.5,000/-.
4). The opposite party opposed the above complaint by way of written version, while admitting that the opposite party Company had issued Shri Vishram Policy Number LN 070900002767 commencing from 28.01.2009 for the assured sum of Rs.6,00,000/- to pay the premium @ Rs.1,00,000/- per year for 12 Years. The complainant is filed consumer complaint before Ranga Reddy District vide C.C.No.64/2012 for refund of total premium paid under Policy i.e., Rs.3,00,000/- to pay risk component of Rs.6,00,000/- etc., wherein, the District Forum vide order dated 27.07.2012 directed the opposite party to pay Rs.3,00,000/- with interest @ 12% p.a., from 21.01.2012 till the date of payment and also directed to pay Rs.50,000/- . While things being so, the complainant submitted an application for partial withdrawal of the fund value under the policy and the same was processed and an amount of Rs.2,21,880.00 was paid to the complainant on 21.03.2013. After that, again in the month of June, 2013 the complainant has submitted an application for complete Surrender of his policy, which was accepted and processed, thereby the Company has paid an amount of Rs.1,12,605-58 being the Surrender Value under the policy after deducting the applicable charges. It is pertinent to mention here that earlier the complainant has filed two complaints one before District Consumer Forum, R.R. District vide C.C.No.64/2012 wherein the Policy No.LN070900002767 was the subject matter under issue and the order of the District Forum was challenged by these opposite parties vide F.A.635/2013 and the same was disposed and these opposite parties complied with the orders, against the same, this complainant has preferred Revision Petition vide RP No.3257/2013 and the same is pending for adjudication. Subsequently, the complainant has filed another complaint vide C.C.No.527/2014 before District Consumer Forum-II, Hyderabad wherein the same policy No.070900002767 is the subject matter under issue and it is filed against the same parties. And now the complainant has filed the present complaint, in which the same policy No. 070900002767 is the subject matter under issue and against the same parties. Hence, it is very clear that the complainant is making one or the other allegations against these opposite parties by filing multiple complaints arising out of the same policy number and against same parties and for similar reliefs by projecting the complaint in different manner, which is nothing but abuse of process of law and wasting the previous time of this Hon’ble Forum having no locus standi. Since, the dispute and subject matter under the present complaint were already raised in previous complaints and since the similar issued is pending before the Hon’ble National Commission vide RP.No3257/2013, the present complaint filed by this complainant is not maintainable and the same is deserves to be dismissed with heavy costs. The relief claimed in C.C.64/2012 and this complaint is one and the same. Therefore, the complaint is barred by adjudication.
5) During the course of enquiry before the District Forum, in order to prove his case, the complainant filed his evidence affidavit and got marked Ex.A1 to A-4 and the opposite party filed evidence affidavit and got marked Ex. B 1 to Both parties filed their written arguments and oral arguments heard.
6) The District Forum, after considering the material available on record,
Held and directed the opposite party to return Rs.4,691.90 along with 9% from 20.06.2013 to the complainant along with costs of Rs.2,000/- within 30 days.
7) Aggrieved by the said order, the opposite party preferred this appeal before this Commission.
8) The points that arise for consideration are,
(i) Whether the impugned order as passed by the District Forum suffers from any error or irregularity or whether it is liable to be set aside, modified or interfered with, in any manner?
(ii) To what relief ?
9). Point No.1 :
The contention of the respondent/complainant is that the appellants’ company unlawfully deducted Rs.4,691.90 against the contract which must be refundable with 12% interest from 20.06.2013. whereas, the appellants contended that the respondent/complainant filed C.C.NO.64/2012 before the District Forum, Ranga Reddy District Consumer Forum and the relief claimed in this complaint is one and the same, therefore this complaint is barred by resjudicata.
10). The District Forum observed that the policy mentioned in C.C.64/2012 filed before R.R. District Forum and this complaint is one and the same. But the relief claimed in this complaint is that the appellants company without any reasonable cause deducted Rs.4,690.90 ps., vide Ex.A4. Therefore the plea of Resjudicate cannot be accepted and came to the conclusion that he is entitled to the same with interest @ 12% pa from 20.06.2013 along with costs while rejecting the other claims on the ground of limitation.
11). Except arguing that the District Forum failed to see that the appellants Insurance company has already paid the entire award amount under CC 64 of 2012, the appellants did not assign any reasons for deducting the amount of Rs.4,690.90 ps vide Ex.A4. They failed to prove that they are also paid the amount of Rs.4,690.90 ps to the respondent/complainant which was deducted by them. We do not find any illegality in the impugned order.
12). After considering the foregoing facts and circumstances and also having regard to the contentions raised on both sides, this Commission is of the view that there is no merits in the appeal and hence it is liable to be dismissed.
13). Point No. 2 :
In the result, the appeal is dismissed confirming the impugned order dated 25.01.2016 in CC 37 of 2015 on the file of the District Forum I, Hyderabad. There shall be no order as to costs. Time for compliance four weeks.
PRESIDENT MEMBER Dated : 02.04.2018.
