BEFORE THE KARNATAKA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BENGALURU (PRINCIPAL BENCH)

DATED: 22.06.2023

PRESENT

HON’BLE Mr. JUSTICE HULUVADI G. RAMESH: PRESIDENT

Mr.K.B SANGANNANAVAR    :         JUDICIAL MEMBER

Mrs. DIVYASHREE M   :         LADY MEMBER

APPEAL NO. 810/2016

ORDER

HON’BLE Mr. JUSTICE HULUVADI G. RAMESH, PRESIDENT

01.    The opposite party has filed this Appeal under section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1987 challenging the order dated: 29.02.2016 passed in Consumer Complaint No.183/2014 by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Davanagere.

02.    Heard the arguments of learned counsel for parties on record.

03.    The District Forum after enquiring into the matter by considering the documents filed by both the parties allowed the complaint and directed the Opposite party to return the premium amount of one and half years paid up to 07.02.2003 with interest at 8% per annum from November-2014 till realization with compensation of Rs.5,000/- and litigation cost of Rs.3,000/- to the complainant.

04.    Aggrieved by this order, opposite party/appellant has filed this Appeal.

05.    Perused the impugned order and grounds of Appeal.   It is observed that, the complainant filed the consumer complaint under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act 1986.  It is the case of the complainant that, the father of the complainant has taken the Endowment Plan Policy bearing No.6219734468 in favour of the complainant for an assured sum of Rs.1,00,000/- for 15 years term.  The complainant had paid the three half yearly installment of Rs.3,347/- each up to 07.02.2003 to the appellant and the date of maturity is 15.01.2017.  Due to financial crises the complainant was unable to pay the future installments and allowed to lapse without acquiring any paid up value.  After completion of 03 years complainant approached the appellant and requested to refund the premium amount paid under the policy, but the appellant refused the same on the ground that, the policy was lapsed for non-payment of premiums as the policy holder has to pay the premium for the full term of the policy to get full policy benefits; surrender value would have been paid if he had paid at least 3 years premium.  In the version filed before the District Forum the appellant has contended that, out of 15 years of policy term only 1½ years premium was received by it i.e., up to 01/2003 and from 07/2003 onwards premiums were not received from the appellants.  The policy was taken on the life of Sri K.P. Dillappa by his father Sri. Parmeshwarappa Kurti as the life assured was aged only 16 years and 5 months and only after 11 years i.e., on 16.10.2014 a legal notice was issued claiming the refund of premiums paid.  As per the policy conditions “the policy lapses if premiums are not paid within days of grace i.e., 30 days or one calendar month whichever is less and once the policy lapses, no risk of life is covered and as per section 45 of the Insurance Act 1938 forfeiture regulation is applicable.  If premiums for at least three years paid under a policy, such policy though lapses, will acquire PAID UP VALUE, which will be paid on exigency for which policy was taken or on maturity. 

06.    The grounds urged by the Appellant is that, the District Forum has erred in not considering the policy conditions on which the contract was arrived between the parties.  The respondent/complainant is well aware of the entire contract and there is breach of contract from the side of complainant.  The District Forum while passing the order has not looked in to the principal lied down in the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Life Insurance Corporation of India Vs S. Singhu (2006)5 SCC 258 and in W.A. No.254/2007 (GM-RES) and also failed to note the provisions of Article 38 & 39 of Constitution of India.  So contending the present appeal came to be filed.

07.    During the course of arguments the learned counsel for appellant was asked to give explanation regarding the decision reported in ILR 2007 KAR 602, but to rebut the same the counsel for appellant/opposite party has not placed any landmark judgments and also failed to produce any cogent evidence.  However during arguments the counsel for respondent/complainant has vehemently opposed the Appeal by stating that, after going through the records thoroughly and after perusing the documents, evidences placed before it, the District Commission had rightly allowed the complaint and hence sought for dismissal of the Appeal. 

08.    From the aforesaid discussions the impugned order dated: 29.02.2016 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Davanagere, is just and proper and the same do not call for any interference.  However due to the act of the appellant/opposite party in not complying the order dated: 29.02.2016 of the District Commission the complainant had suffered further loss and mental agony and hence the compensation of Rs.5,000/- and cost of Rs.3,000/- awarded by the District Commission is meager.  In our considered view, it is just and proper to enhance the compensation to Rs.20,000/- and cost to Rs.10,000/-, which would meet the ends of justice.  Accordingly we proceed to pass the following:-

ORDER

09.    The Appeal is allowed-in-part.  The impugned order dated: 29.02.2016 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Davanagere is hereby set aside only in respect of cost and compensation awarded by the District Forum and the direction towards return of premium amount of 1½ years paid up to 07.02.2003 with interest at 8% per annum from November-2014 till realization awarded by the District Forum is unaltered. 

10.    The amount kept in deposit by the appellant shall be transferred to the District Disputes Redressal Commission for needful. 

11.    Provide copy of this order to the District Commission as well as to the parties to the appeal.

LADY MEMBER            JUDICIAL MEMBER          PRESIDENT

KNMP*