District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission ,Faridabad.
Consumer Complaint No.274/2021.
Date of Institution: 26.05.2021.
Date of Order: 13.09.2022.
Anubhav Kalia aged about 40 years son of Shri Yuvraj Chander Kalia, resident of 404-A, IFCI Park View Apartment, GH-15, Sector-46, Faridabad.
…….Complainant……..
Versus
1. HDFC Bank Limited, having its branch at SCO 139-140, Sector-21C, Faridabad through its Branch Manager.
2. HDFC Life Insurance Company Limited, First floor, 5-R/1-A, B.K.Chowk, NIT, Faridabad. Through its Divisional Manager.
3. M/s. Blue Dart Express
Limited, Neelam Chowk, NH-5, Fruit Garden, NIT,, Faridabad through its Director/Principal Officer.
…Opposite parties……
Complaint under section-12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986
Now amended Section 34 of Consumer protection Act 2019.
BEFORE: Amit Arora……………..President
Mukesh Sharma…………Member.
Indira Bhadana…………Member.
PRESENT: Sh. Ramesh Goyal, counsel for the complainant.
Sh. Lalit Vashisht, counsel for opposite party No.1.
Sh. Sagar Bhatia, counsel for opposite party No.2.
Opposite party No.3 given up vide order dated 07.09.2021.
ORDER:
The facts in brief of the complaint are that the parents of the complainant were having their current accounts bearing No. 06152020000793 and 06152560001311 lying with opposite party No.1 bank. The opposite party No.2 withdrew an amount of Rs.6,00,000/- from the above said bank accounts of parents of the complainant, during the period from the year of 2017 to 2018. After coming to know about the same, the parents of the complainant contact the opposite parties No.1 then they stated that the opposite party No.2 had issued an insurance policy in the name of their son i.e. complainant. After coming to know about the same, the complainant as well as his parents became surprised, because either the complainant or his parents never approached the opposite parties Nos.1 & 2 to issue any insurance policy. Even though the complainant was residing abroad at that time. The complainant never received any insurance policy nor he was ever informed by the opposite parties about the same. Opposite party No.2 opened the life insurance policies without any KYC document. The complainant neither had given any online document, it was a fraud committed by opposite parties Nos.1 & 2 jointly and severally and also deficiency of services for which they were liable to be punished. It was very surprised for complainant that the opposite parties from where picked the KYC documents without the consent of the complainant or his parent. Even when the complainant contacted the opposite party No.2 and asked them to clear the position of the above said facts, then they stated that they had
issued a letter dated 18.2.2020 stating therein that they have delivered the documents to Anubhav Kalia i.e. the complainant, on 10.4.2017/11.4.2017, it was matter of surprise, that on 10.4.2017 and 11.4.2017 the complainant was not present in India. Further it was also a matter of surprise, the opposite party No.2 stated in its letter dated 18.2.2020 that they had delivered the document to the complainant at Faridabad on 10.4.2017 and 11.4.2017, how can it possible that both letters were booked on 10.4.2017 in the name of same person same address, but the same had delivered on n10.4.2017 and 11.4.2017 as mentioned. So, it was clear that the opposite party No.1 through its Manager Salabh Gupta had played a fraud with the complainant on collusion with opposite parties and for which complainant reserve his right to take criminal action against them. Inspite of receipt of the abovesaid amount, the opposite parties never issued any receipt to the complainant nor they had ever issued any certificate etc. till date now. The complainant as well as his parents approached several times to the opposite parties to supply the details of amount, as the same had been withdrawn from the bank account of the parents of the complainant, without their consent, but they always avoided it on one pretext or the other and they never supplied any details or certificate with regard to amount. Previously the parents of complainant filed complaint u/s 34 of Consumer Protection Act, against the opposite parties vide consumer complaint NO. 204 and 205 of 21.07.2020, before this Hon’ble Commission, but the same was dismissed as withdrawn by the parents of the complainant with a liberty to file fresh complaint/suit or any proceedings before any competent commission authority/court. The complainant can claim benefit of Section 14 of the Limitation Act to exclude the period spent in prosecuting proceedings under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, before this Hon’ble Commissio0n while computing the period of limitation.The aforesaid act of
opposite parties amounts to deficiency of service and hence the complaint. The complainant has prayed for directions to the opposite parties to:
a) release the payment of Rs.6,00,000/- alongwith interest @ 24% p.a. from the date of its due till realization of whole amount.
b) pay Rs. 2,00,000/- as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment .
c) pay Rs.331,000 /-as litigation expenses.
2. Opposite party No.1 put in appearance through counsel and filed written statement wherein Opposite party No.1 refuted claim of the complainant and submitted that the present complaint was hopelessly barred by limitation. It was stated that the parents of the complainant i.e Shri Yuraj Klia and Mrs. Prem Kalia availed insurance policy in the year 2017 and the present complaint had been filed in the year 2021. It was stated that the complainant had miserably failed to explain the delay in the complaint filed. Further, the parents of the complainant had filed consumer complaint bearing No. 204 of 2020 titled Prem Kalia Vs. HDFC Bank Limited & Ors. And consumer complaint bearing NO. 205 of 2020 titled Yuvraj Chander Kalia Vs. HDFC Bank Limited & ors. Before this Hon’ble Commission on same cause of action. The pleadings were complete in both the matters and the father of the complainant withdrew both the complaints citing technical fault. The complaint filed by the mother of the complainant was withdrawn by Shri Yuvraj Chander Kali without any authority from Mrs. Prem Kalia. This Hon’ble Commission vide order date 18.3.2021 granted liberty to the parent sof the complainant to file fresh complaint or any other proceedings before any competent Commission/Authority/Court and that the parents of the complainant can claim benefit of Section 14 of the L:imitation act to exclude the period spent in prosecuting proceeding sunder the Consumer Protection Act 1986
before this Commission while computing the period of limitation. It was submitted that the complainant herein cannot claim the benefit of Section 14 of the Limitation Act in filing the present complaint. The complainant had wrongly impleaded answering opposite party as party to the present complaint. It was stated that answering opposite party was a Banking company registered under Banking Regulation act, 1949 and answering opposite party had not issued the insurance policy in question to the complainant. Further, it was clarified that opposite parties NOs.1 & 2 were separate legal entities registered separately and had different Memorandum of Association and Article of Association. It was stated that the insurance policy in question had been issued by opposite party No.2 with the consent of the parents of the complainant. The answering opposite party had no role to play in issuance of insurance policies being a Banking Company. Further the answering opposite party cannot disburse the amount of Rs.6,00,000/- alongwith interest as prayed for by the complainant as the same was the sole prerogative of the opposite party No.2 and was completely outside the domain of answering opposite party. The mother of the complainant,, Mrs. Prem Kalia approached answering opposite party for opening of current account in the name of M/s. AKS Consultants. After completion of necessary Know Your client formalities, current account bearing number 06152020000793 was opened on 07.02.2013 and the father of the complainant Shri Yuvraj Chander Kalia approached answering opposite party for opening of current account in the name of M/s. Techniks Consultants. After completion of necessary Know Your client (KYC) formalities, current account bearing no. 06152560001311 was opened on 07.02.2013. In the year 2017, the parents of the complainant approached answering opposite party for insurance plans who in turn introduced the complainant to opposite party No.2 and as per IRDA guidelines, opposite party No.2 ought to have explained the various insurance policies to parents of the
complainant and thereafter the parents of the complainant signed the proposal form and opted for Life Insurance Policy. The allegation of mis-selling do not apply to answering opposite party as answering opposite party was a bank and not insurance company. The parents of the complainant had opted for the policy and all features on the insurance policy were duly explained to them by opposite party No.2. Opposite party No. 1 denied rest of the allegations leveled in the complaint .3. Opposite party No.1 put in appearance through counsel and filed written statement wherein Opposite party No.1 refuted claim of the complainant and submitted that the complaint was not maintainable in as much as the complaint was barred by limitation period as prescribed under section 69 of Consumer Protection act, 1996. It was submitted that the complainant purchased the Life insurance policy NO. 19198411 and 19199737 from the opposite party No.2 vide Electronic Proposal Form and policy bond wth free look period letter dated 06.04.2017 was delivered at the correspondence address. The insured did not file policy cancellation request with Free Look Period nor filed complaint before any Forum/Court within the limitation period as prescribed under section 69 of the Consumer Protection Act. 2019. Opposite party No. 2 denied rest of the allegations leveled in the complaint
4. Complainant has made a statement that he gives up opposite party NO.2 being unnecessary. Hence, opposite party No.3 was given up from the array of the opposite parties vide order dated 7.9.2021.
5. The parties led evidence in support of their respective versions.
6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record on the file.
7. In this case the complaint was filed by the complainant against
opposite parties– IHDFC Bank Ltd. & Others with the prayer to: a) release the payment of Rs.6,00,000/- alongwith interest @ 24% p.a. from the date of its due till realization of whole amount. b) pay Rs. 2,00,000/- as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment .c) pay Rs.331,000 /-as litigation expenses.
To establish his case the complainant has led in his evidence, Ex.CW1/A – affidavit of Anubhav Kalia,,Ex.C-1 - order dated 18.03.201 passed by the DCDRC, Faridabad on 18.03.2021,, Ex.C-2 & 3 – statement of accounts, Ex.C-4 – letter dated 18.02.2020, Ex.C-5 to 12 – emails, Ex.C-13 – letter dated 18.02.2020, Ex.c-14 – H.K.Entry clearance card, Ex.C-15 – card, Ex.C-16 – Identity card.
On the other hand counsel for the opposite party No.1 strongly agitated and opposed. As per the evidence of the opposite party No.1 – Ex.OP1/A – affidavit of Vipul Kumar Tandon, Annexure A – India Non Judicial, Annexure B(colly) – complaint titled Prem Kalia vs. HDFC.
As per evidence of opposite party No.2 Ex.RW2/A – affidavit of Kunal Aurora, deputy Manager-Legal, HDFC Life Insurance Co.Ltd., Ex.R2/2 – letter dated 6th April 2017, Ex.R2/3 – Policy Document- HDFC SL ProGrowth Super II, Ex.R2/4 – Proposal Form/Electronic Proposal Form for Single Life, Ex.R-2/6 – Policy Document – HDFC SL ProGrowth Super II,
8. In this case, the complaint was filed by Anubhav Kalia vide C.C. No. 274/26.5.2021 with the prayer of: a) release the payment of Rs.6,00,000/- alongwith interest @ 24% p.a. from the date of its due till realization of whole amount. b) pay Rs. 2,00,000/- as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment .c) pay Rs.331,000 /-as litigation expenses.
Initially the complaint was filed by Yuvraj Chander Kalia father of the complainant which was dismissed as withdrawn with the permission to file fresh complaint before the competent authority. The objection was taken by the opposite party that the account was of Yuvraj Chander Kalia but the policy was issued in the name of Anubhav Kalia.
9. After going through the evidence led by the parties and the statement given by Shri Sagar Bhatia, counsel for opposite party No.2 stating that “the policy NO. 19199737 was discontinued due to non payment of insurance premium after second year of policy. Accordingly, the policy was terminated. The fund balance of Rs,3,04,618.63/- available under the policy was paid to policy holder on 5.4.2022 through NEFT vide UTR No. 20405137630.
Similarly the policy NO. 19198411 was discontinued due to non payment of insurance premium after second year of policy. Accordingly, the policy as terminated. The fund balance of Rs.3,4,618.63/- available under the policy was paid to policy holder on 30.05.2022 through NEFT vide UTR No. 205303858985.”
10. The payment was transferred in the name of Anubhav Kalia. Shri Yuvraj Chander Kalia appeared in person and argued at length that the opposite parties are playing hide and seek with the father of the complainant and they are playing tricks with the complainant’s father and the complainant and making mockry of the process of the law. They have taken the amount of Rs. 6,00,000/- from the Account of Yuvraj Kalia and issued the policy without consent of the account holder and without permission of ECS. The premium was also deducted from the account of Yuvraj Chander Kalia. Although Yuvraj Chander Kalia is the special attorney of the Anubhav Kalia and argued for the harassment and litigation charges.
11. Keeping in view of the above, the Commission is of the opinion that the complaint is allowed with the direction to opposite parties to refund the amount of Rs.6,00,000/- which was taken from Yuvraj Chander Kalia’s account alongwith interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of deduction from the account of Yuvraj Chander Kalia till today i.e date of order. The opposite parties are also directed to pay Rs.5500/- as compensation on account of mental tension, agony and harassment alongwith Rs.5500/- as litigation expenses to the complainant. Compliance of this order be made within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of order. Copy of this order be given to the parties concerned free of costs and file be consigned to record room.
Announced on: 13.09.2022 (Amit Arora)
President
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Faridabad.
(Mukesh Sharma)
Member
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Faridabad.
(Indira Bhadana)
Member
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Faridabad.
