THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KOZHIKODE.
C.C. 17/2012
Dated this the 2nd day of June 2016
(Smt. Rose Jose, B.Sc, LLB. : President)
Smt.Beena Joseph, M.A : Member
Sri. Joseph Mathew, MA, LLB : Member
ORDER
Present: Rose Jose, President:
This petition is filed under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
Petitioner’s case is that he took a policy of the opposite party’s having Policy No. 0060214631 on 14/08/2007. The premium amount payable yearly was Rs.12,000/- and he had paid 3 installments. Thus a total amount of Rs.36,000/- was remitted towards policy. In connection with his sister’s marriage he was badly in need of money and hence decided to surrender the said policy. As such, he made a surrender request to opposite party No. 3 as Service Request No. PS.02963033. The opposite parties accepted the request on 07/12/2011 and issued a letter to him stating that the NAV in his account as on the said date was Rs.40,241.28. after deducting a surrender penalty of Rs.4,705.66 the amount payable to him is Rs.35,535.62.
It is stated by the petitioner that as against the statements in their letter dated 7/12/2011 they have deposited only Rs.21,833.22 into his account ie. a deduction of Rs.13,697.40 from the admitted amount. Though he had made complaint to the higher authorities of the opposite parties, they didn’t response to his complaint. The non-payment of the admitted amount is unfair trade practice and also deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties that caused much hardship and mental agony and also financial loss to him. Hence the petition is filed to direct the opposite parties to pay him the deducted amount of Rs.13,697.40 with interest and a compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- for his sufferings and also cost of the proceedings.
The opposite parties in their version contended that this petition is not maintainable either in law or on facts. The petitioner is not a consumer as per the provisions of Consumer Protection Act and hence the Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain or adjudicate this petition. Admittedly by the petitioner was their policy holder having Policy No. 00602143631 under “Capital Unit Gain Size One Scheme”. It is also admitted that the yearly premium amount was Rs.12,000/- and the petitioner had remitted 3 installments ie. total amount of Rs.36,000/-. It is further admitted that the petitioner had made a surrender request No.PS02963033 on 07/12/2011. But it is stated that the amount shows as payable in their letter dated 07/11/2011 was not correct and it happened due to a human error in the calculation. It is stated that the policy of the petitioner was already lapsed and it was revived on 31/12/2010. At the time of revival instead of allocating 848.2808 units, due to error an excess number of units of the same NAV has again been allocated and hence the petitioner fund value was reflecting 2551.0501 NAV of Rs.15.5492. That is why it happened to be shown in the letter to the petitioner that his fund value is 2551.0501 X 15.5492 = Rs.40,241.28, but his actual fund value as on 07/12/2011 was 1702.760 X 15.5492 = Rs.26,476.71 only. It is stated that this matter was informed to the petitioner vide their e-mail letter dated 14/12/2011, letter dated 06/02/2012 and personally over telephone. As per the Policy Clause, the surrender penalty of Rs.4,638.4819 has to be deducted from the fund value then he is liable to get an amount of Rs.21,838.2 only and the opposite party have already credited the amount to the petitioner’s account and the petitioner accepted the same. They have not followed any unfair trade practice or any deficiency in service and are not liable to pay any amount as falsely claimed by the petitioner. Hence prayed to dismiss the petition with their cost.
Matters to be decided are:-
- Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties?
- Reliefs and cost if any?
Evidence consists of the affidavit filed by the petitioner. Ext. A1 to
A3 and deposition of PW1.
Point No. 1: The case of both parties is stated above. Petitioner produced Ext. A1 to A3 to prove his case. Ext. A1 is the copy of letter dated 07/12/2011issued by the opposite parties informing the amount which the opposite party is liable to pay to the petitioner. Ext. A2 is the copy of his account statement in Union Bank of India, showing that the opposite parties have deposited an amount of Rs.21,839.21 on 12/12/2011. Ext. A3 is the copy of e-mail letter issued by the petitioner to the opposite parties dated 12/12/2011 stating that they have deposited a lesser amount of Rs.21,873/- against the admitted amount of Rs.35,535.62 and hence he sustained loss of money and requesting them to take necessary action to resolve the problem. According to the opposite parties the amount shown in Ext. A1 as payable was not correct and it happened due to human error in calculation. The mistakes in that statement was informed to the petitioner vide their letters dated 14/12/2011 and 06/02/2012 and the petitioner had appraised and agreed to that amount also. As it is denied by the petitioner it is for them to prove that the amount shown in Ext. A1 is due to a mistake and they have informed the petitioner, the matter through letters as alleged with supportive evidence. But the opposite parties have not adduced any evidence to prove their said contentions. In the absence of evidence in this regard the said contentions of the opposite parties cannot be relied on.
It is also to be considered that the opposite parties have not sent any reply to the Ext. A3 e-mail letter dated 12/12/2011 issued to them by the petitioner. Moreover as per their version the letters of the opposite parties issued to the petitioner dated 14/12/2011 and 06/02/2012 are only after depositing the disputed amount to the petitioner’s account. If the contentions of the opposite parties are genuine, they ought to have sent the letters before depositing the amount to the petitioner’s account on 12/12/2011 stating all the facts and clearing the doubts of the petitioner. If they have done so, then the petitioner would have got a time to decide whether he has to surrender the policy for such a lesser amount or not. This was not done by the opposite parties. So considering the facts and relying on the evidence before us, we are of the view that there is deficiency in service on the side of the opposite party in paying a lesser amount to the petitioner than the admitted amount as per Ext. A1 document. Point No. 1 found in favour of the petitioner.
Point No. 2: In view of the findings in Point No. 1, the petition is to be allowed and the petitioner is entitled to get reasonable reliefs.
In the result, the following order is passed. The opposite parties are ordered to pay to the petitioner the deducted amount of Rs.13,697.40 (Rupees thirteen thousand six hundred ninety seven and paise forty only) with 12% interest from 12/12/2011 onwards till payment along with Rs.3,000/- (Rupees three thousand only) as cost of this proceedings. As interest is allowed, no order as to compensation. This order will be complied with, within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order.
Dated this the 2nd .day of June, 2016
Date of filing: 13.01.2012
SD/-MEMBER SD/-PRESIDENT SD/- MEMBER
APPENDIX
Documents exhibited for the complainant:
A1.Copy of the letter issued by the opposite party to the complainant dtd.07.12.2011.
A2. Copy of his account statement in Union Bank of India dtd.12.12.2011.
A3.Copy of e.mail letter issued by the petitioner to the opposite parties dtd.12.12.2011
Documents exhibited for the opposite party:
Nil
Witness examined for the complainant:
PW1. Nigeesh.V.C(Complainant)
Witness examined for the opposite party:
None
Sd/-President
//True copy//
(Forwarded/By Order)
SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT
