Haryana

Karnal

CC/30/2015

sukhdev Kumar S/o Sh. Nanha Ram - Complainant(s)

Versus

Haryana Gramin Bank - Opp.Party(s)

Raj Pal Singh

02 Apr 2018

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM KARNAL.

 

                                                         Complaint No.30 of 2015

                                                        Date of instt. 23.02.2015

                                                        Date of decision: 02.04.2018

 

Sukhdev Kumar son of Shri Nanha Ram resident of village Memhadpur, District Karnal.

                                                                                                                                                                        …….Complainant.

                                        Versus

 

1. The Manager, Haryana Gramin Bank, Kunjpura, District Karnal.

2. Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Co. Ltd. Sector-12, Karnal through its Manager.

                                                                     …..Opposite Parties.

 

           Complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.    

 

Before   Shri Jagmal Singh……President.

              Ms Veena Rani…..Member

              Shri Anil Sharma……Member

 

Present  Shri Raj Pal Lathar Advocate for complainant.

               Shri Abhishek Chaudhary Advocate for OP no.1.

               Shri N.K. Zak Advocate for OP no.2.

 

ORDER:                    

 

                (Jagmal Singh President)

 

                         This complaint has been filed by the complainant u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 on the averments that complainant was enrolled as a member of Tatkal Bima Group Insurance Scheme with Membership no.009324 with OP no.1 and OP no.1 has taken a Saver Shakti Suraksha Policy from OP no.2 for the complainant, vide policy no.119486435 with tenure 05.03.2009 to 06.03.2014. The complainant has paid Rs.10,000/- per annum in five years on 11.03.2010, 28.01.2011, 09.03.2011, 23.3.2012 and 12.02.2014 besides this complainant has paid Rs.12,000/- on 5.11.2009. In this way complainant has paid total Rs.62000/- with the OP no.1.OPs assured the complainant that they will repay Rs.1,25,000/- to the complainant alongwith interest thereon. On the completion of the tenure OPs deposited Rs.47320/- on 30.8.2014 in the account of complainant against the deposited Rs.62000/- but not deposited Rs.1,25,000/- as assured. Thereafter, complainant approached the OPs several times and requested to pay the balance amount but OPs always lingered the matter on one pretext or the other and finally refused to pay the balance amount. Then complainant served a legal notice dated 4.12.2014 to the OPs in that regard but all in vain. In this way there was deficiency in service on the part of the OPs. Hence complainant filed the present complaint.

2.             Notice of the complaint was given to the OPs. OP no.1 appeared and filed written statement raising preliminary objections with regard to locus standi and cause of action and concealments of true and material facts. On merits, it is submitted that the complainant was enrolled as member of Tatkal Bima Group with OP no.2 and OP no.1 was only a facilitator to repay or receive premium as an agreement between insurer and the insured. OP no.1 had no authority to decide the payment as maturity as it was the solely right of OP no.2. OP no.1 has received the maturity amount from OP no.2 and simultaneously it was credited into the account of complainant. The OP no.1 had no authority to increase or decrease the maturity amount of policy fixed and provided by the OP no.2. Hence there was no deficiency in service on the part of the OP no.1 and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

3.             OP no.2 filed its separate written statement raising preliminary objections with regard to cause of action and locus standi: complainant is estopped to file the present complaint by his own act and conduct; jurisdiction; barred by limitation and concealment of true and material facts from this Forum. On merits, it is submitted that the maturity claim amount was calculated strictly in accordance with the terms and conditions of the policy and permissible amount of maturity value amounting to Rs.47320/- stands already paid by the OPs. Vide cheque no.211452 dated 12.07.2014. It is further submitted that as per terms and condition of Bajaj Allianz Group ‘Swayam Shakti Suraksha’ policy no.0119486435 administered by Haryana Gramin Bank are standard for all the insured members throughout India and are in accordance with the approvals of the Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority. The complainant has not challenged or disputed the terms of the certificate of the insurance and master policy till the date of maturity and enjoyed the risk cover to the tune of Rs.2,50,000/- for five years from the date of membership till date of maturity without ever disputing the terms of the contract. It is further submitted that the complainant has not submitted any documentary evidence to prove that any alleged commitment was made by the OPs or any person authorized by the OP no.2. Hence there was no deficiency in service on the part of the OP no.2. The other allegations made in the complaint have been denied and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

4.             Complainant tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex.CW1/A and documents Ex.CW1 to Ex.CW5 and closed the evidence on 17.02.2016.

5.             On the other hand, OP no.1 tendered into evidence affidavit of Yashpal Walia Branch Manager Ex.RW1/Aand documents Ex.RW1/B. OP no.2 tendered into evidence affidavit of Ashok Kumar Manager Ex.OP2/A and documents Ex.OP2/B to Ex.OP2/D and closed their evidence on 16.08.2016.

6.             We have heard the learned counsel for both the parties and perused the case file carefully and have also gone through the evidence led by the parties.

7.             It is not disputed that the complainant was enrolled as a member of the ‘Swayam Shakti Suraksha’ Group Master policy bearing no.0119486435 from OP no.2 through OP no.1 for a term of five years from 5.3.2009 to 5.3.2014 for sum assured of Rs.2,50,000/-. The membership no.09324, the premium was Rs.10000/- per annum. It is also not disputed that on maturity Rs.47320/- has been paid to the complainant.

8.             According to the complainant, the OP no.2 obtained six premium instead of 5 premium and one premium obtained was of Rs.12000/-. It is pertinent to mention here that the complainant had moved an application for amendment of complaint that the OPs had received two premiums of Rs.12000/- instead of one as alleged in the complaint but the said application was dismissed by this Forum vide order dated 18.12.2017 being made at the fag end of the trial. It is further the case of the complainant that the OPs had given the assurance that they (OPs) will repay Rs.1,25,000/- to the complainant with interest. But the OPs have paid Rs.47320/- only instead of Rs.1,25,000/- inspite of the fact that the OPs received Rs.62000/-. The complainant claimed the balance amount of Rs.14680/- (i.e.62000-47320=14680) with interest                                               beside compensation and litigation charges.

9.             According to OP no.1, he was only facilitator to pay and receive premium and agreement was between OP no.2 and the complainant. To prove that OP no.2 had received six premiums instead of five premiums, at the time of argument, OP no.1 produced the statement of account of the complainant and vouchers vide which payments were made to OP no.2. These vouchers shows that the two premiums were of Rs.12000/- instead of Rs.10,000/-.

10.           According to OP no.2, he received only five premiums of Rs.10,000/- each and on maturity Rs.47320/- has been paid to the complainant as per the terms and conditions of the policy. The complainant enjoyed risk cover to the tune of Rs.2,50,000/- for full terms of five years.

11.           As stated above that at the time of arguments, the OP no.1 produced the copies of the vouchers vide which the premiums of the complainant or his group have been paid. From these copies of the vouchers, it is clear that the OP no.1 paid to OP no.2, the amount of premium six times in five years and out of these premium, the amount of Rs.12000/- was paid two times and Rs.10,000/- four times. From the copies of the vouchers it is clear that Rs.12,000/- were paid on 5.11.2009 and on 28.1.2011, whereas Rs.10,000/- were paid on 11.3.2010, 9.3.2011, 23.3.2012 and 12.2.2014. Therefore, the OP no.1 has paid Rs.64000/- against the payment of Rs.50000/-. In this way the OP no.2 received Rs.14,000/- (i.e. Rs.64000/-50,000/-=Rs.14,000/-)  in excess from the OP no.1. Therefore, in these circumstances, we are of the considered view that it is proved on the file that the OP no.2 has received Rs.14,000/- in excess from the complainant and the OP no.2 is liable to refund this excess amount to the complainant, but the same was not refunded, so the OP no.2 is deficient.

12.           Thus, as a sequel to abovesaid discussion, we allow the present complaint and direct the OPs no.2 to pay Rs.14,000/- to the complainant with interest @ 8% per annum from the date of filing the complaint till its realization. We further direct the OPs to pay Rs.2200/- in lump sum on account of mental tension, harassment and litigation expenses. This order shall be complied within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced

Dated: 02.04.2018

                                                                       

                                                                  President,

                                                          District Consumer Disputes

                                                           Redressal Forum, Karnal.

 

 

                  (Veena Rani)         (Anil Sharma)

                       Member                  Member