RESERVED

State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission

U.P., Lucknow.

Appeal No. 123 of 2011

Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Company Limited,

G.E. Plaza Airport Road, Yerwada, Pune through

Branch Office, Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance

Company Ltd., 4, Shahnajaf Road, Hazratganj,

Lucknow (U.P.) through its Officer-in-charge.

                                                                          ..Appellant.

Versus

Dr. R.K. Shukla & Smt. Keshav Raj Shukla,

Both R/o House no.5, Nai Colony, Achalpur,

Tehsil Sadar, District Pratapgarh U.P.         ...Respondent.

Present:-                                                   

1- Hon’ble Sri Vijai Varma, Presiding Member.

2- Hon’ble Sri Mahesh Chand, Member.

Shi Dinesh Kumar for the appellant.

Sri Parajat Banaura for the respondent.

Date   8.5.2017

JUDGMENT

(Delivered by Sri Vijai Varma,  Member)

Aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 30.11.2010, passed by the Ld. DCDRF, Pratapgarh in complaint case No.108 of 2007, the appellant Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Company Limited has preferred the instant appeal. 

The facts leading to this appeal, in short, are that the respondents/complainants had deposited a sum of Rs.4,00,000.00 on 3.8.2006 in the form of Demand Draft and another sum of Rs.2,00,000.00 in the form of Banker cheque in the office of the appellant/OP no.3 and the receipts of Rs.1,00,000.00 each was issued on 4.8.2006 with the assurance that the policy of Unit Gain Easy

(2)

Pension plus SP and Unit Gain Term SP shall be issued shortly. When the complainants contacted the OP no.3 then it was told that the bonds have not yet arrived. They were made to run from Allahabad to Pratapgarh to find out about the policies but only this information was given that the proposals were accepted but the policies were not obtained by them. Subsequently, the complainants came to know that the drafts and the cheques were lost which caused immense pain to the complainants. It is after frantic efforts that in the accounts of the complainants, the amount of the Banker cheque was credited on 17.2.2007 and the amount deposited through bank draft was credited on 9.12.2006 after compliance of the formalities. The complainants filed the complaint case for compensation etc in the District Forum, Pratapgarh where the matter proceeded exparte against the OPs for not filing any WS and the ld. Forum passed the exparte order on 30.11.2010:-

"परिवाद सं0-10/2007 डाक्‍टर आर0के0 शुक्‍ला एवं अन्‍य बनाम जनरल मैनेजर चेयरमैन बजाज एलियांस कम्‍पनी लिव आदि सव्‍यय एकपक्षीय रूप से स्‍वीकार किया जाता है। विपक्षी को निर्देश दियाजाता है कि वे एक महीने में परिवादीगणको रूपया दो लाख इकसठ हजार तीन सौ छत्‍तीस का धन अदा करें तथा इसके साथ ही साथ फरवरी 2007 से भुगतान की तिथि तक रूपया 61036/- पर दस प्रतिशत वार्षिक ब्‍याज की दर से ब्‍याज भी अदा करें।"

Feeling aggrieved with the impugned order, this appeal has been preferred by the appellant.

The main grounds of the appeal are that the ld. Forum passed exparte order without considering the fact

(3)

that the amount paid by the complainant in terms of bank draft and Bankers cheque was never encashed by the appellant Insurance Company and that it was contended by the insurance company that the said money was returned to the complainants on 9.12.2006 and 17.2.2007 and at the most the complainants could be entitled for the loss of interest for the period the money was not lying in their accounts, therefore, the ld. Forum had passed an unreasoned and arbitrary order for compensation and damages having no nexus with the loss sustained by the complainants. Therefore, the impugned judgment is based on wrong reasoning and is liable to be set aside and the appeal allowed.

          Heard the ld. counsel for the parties and perused the entire records.

In this case, it is not disputed that the respondents/ complainants had deposited the Bank draft and Banker cheque to the tune of Rs.6,00,000.00 with the appellant/ OP for issuing Unit Gain bonds. It is also not disputed that the aforesaid bank draft and the banker cheque were lost at the end of the appellant/OP and the amount could be credited back to the accounts of the respondents/ complainants on 9.12.2006 and 17.2.2007. The disputed point according to the appellant is that there was no occasion for the ld. Forum to award payment of Rs.2,61,300.00 and to pay interest @ 10% on the sum of Rs.61,036.00 w.e.f. February, 2007 as only the interest could be awarded for the period for which the amount paid by the complainants were not with them. On the contrary, the contention of the respondents/complainants is that the

(4)

complainants suffered because of deficiency in service in not issuing bonds despite amount taken for the purpose and crediting the amount only after much efforts were made by the complainants, hence, the order passed by the Forum below is correct. So now it is to be seen as to whether the appellant committed deficiency in service in not issuing the bonds and thereafter crediting the amount taken for the purpose with much delay. If so, its   consequences ?

          Ld. counsel for the appellant has argued that there was no question of passing the impugned order for awarding a sum of Rs.2,61,300.00 when the amount in question was refunded for the period for which the amount did not remain with the complainants. It is clear from the records that the drafts and cheques deposited by the complainants for the purposes of issuance of bonds were lost at the end of the appellant and it is only when the complainants made frantic efforts that after much delay the amount of the draft was credited on 9.12.2006 and the amount of cheque was credited on 17.2.2007 as is the admission of the complainants in para 10 of the complaint. The complainants in para 10 of the complaint have stated that they could not get interest on the amount and the appellant in their appeal have contended that at the most the complainant could be awarded interest on the amount for the period for which the amount was not lying with them. So, it is clear that the appellants were bound to make payment of the interest for the period for which the amount was not lying with the complainants and as the

(5)

same was not done by them, therefore, they have committed deficiency in service but then there is no occasion for the ld. Forum below to pass orders for payment of Rs.2,61,300.00 and there is no justification for awarding this sum to the complainants when the entire amount was refunded back to the complainants. Therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside as the appellants are liable to make payment of interest only on the sums of Rs.6,00,000.00 for the period for which the amount did not remain with them and the appeal is liable to be allowed accordingly.   

ORDER

The appeal is partly allowed and the appellant is directed to make payment of interest @ 9% p.a. on the amount of Rs.6,00,000.00 for the period w.e.f. 3.8.2006 till the date when the sums were credited back in the accounts of the respondents/complainants. The respondents/complainants are also entitled to the cost of Rs.5,000.00.

 Certified copy of the judgment be provided to the parties in accordance with rules.

                 (Vijai Varma)                    (Mahesh Chand)

               Presiding Member                     Member

Jafri PA II

Court No.4