Punjab

StateCommission

FA/12/1567

Gurmail Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

HDFC Bank Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Viranjeet Singh Mahal

21 Jan 2015

ORDER

2^nd Additional Bench

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PUNJAB

DAKSHIN MARG, SECTOR 37-A, CHANDIGARH

First Appeal No. 1567 of 2012

                                                          

                                   Date of institution: 22.11.2012  

                             Date of Decision:    21.1.2015

 

Gurmail Singh S/o Joginder Singh R/o House No. 305, Street No. 5, Guru Teg Bahadur Nagar, Handiaya Road, Barnala, District Barnala.

…..Appellant/Complainant

                                      Versus

1. HDFC Bank Ltd., Pacca College Road, Barnala through its Branch Manager.
2. Aviva Life Insurance, 5^th Floor, JMD Regent Square, Gurgaon-Mehrauli Road, Gurgaon-122001(Haryana) through its Manager.

…..Respondents/Opposite Parties

 

First Appeal against the order dated 7.9.2012 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Barnala.

 

Quorum:-

              Shri Gurcharan Singh Saran, Presiding Judicial Member

              Shri Jasbir Singh Gill, Member

 

Present:-

          For the appellant             :         None.

          For respondent No.1        :         Sh. Sunil Narang, Advocate

          For respondent No.2        :         Sh. Sandeep Suri, Advocate

Gurcharan Singh Saran, Presiding Judicial Member

ORDER

The appellant/complainant (hereinafter referred as “the complainant”) has filed the present appeal against the order dated 7.9.2012 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Barnala(hereinafter referred as “the District Forum”) in consumer complaint No.8 dated 11.1.2012 vide which the complaint filed by the complainant was dismissed. 

2.                The complaint was filed by the complainant under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short ‘the Act’) against the respondents/opposite parties(hereinafter referred as ‘OPs’)  on the allegations that the complainant was having a current account with Centurion Bank of Punjab in the name of M/s Raiya Transport Service but lateron merged with Bank of Punjab and Bank of Punjab merged with HDFC bank. The Branch Manager of the Centurion Bank of Punjab, Barnala told the complainant that they had tie-up with OP No. 2 for the purpose of insurance and there can be good returns for investment with that Company. If the complainant deposits Rs. 25,000/- per annum for three consecutive years, the complainant will be insured for a sum of Rs. 2.50 lacs and after expiry of three years, he will get the amount so deposited alongwityh 30% appreciation. Accordingly, he deposited a sum of Rs. 25,000/- bearing cheque No. 888124 drawn on Centurion Bank of Punjab, Barnala to the Manager of the Bank. However, the said Branch Manager had not supplied the copy of the proposal form and the insurance policy. The complainant deposited a sum of Rs. 25,000/- continuously for the period of three years i.e. 5.1.2007, 2.2.2008, 5.2.2009. However, the complainant just received a sum of Rs. 25,000/- vide cheque No. 729467 dated 8.12.2011 drawn from Axis Bank Ltd. as lumpsum amount alongwith photocopy of the proposal form and account statement. This proposal form has been stated to be executed on 10.11.2006 at Ludhiana but the complainant never visited Ludhiana. The complainant had not received the amount alongwith 30% appreciation as promised by the Ops. Accordingly, the complaint has been filed by the complainant against the Ops with a direction to the Ops to pay a sum of Rs. 75,000/- alongwith 30% appreciation plus interest @ 18%, Rs. 11,000/- as litigation expenses and Rs. 1 lac as compensation for mental agony and harassment.

3.                The complaint was contested by the Ops. OP No. 1 filed written reply taken legal objections that the complainant had no locus-standi to file the complaint, the complainant had paid Rs. 75,000/- to the Centurion Bank of Punjab Ltd. and no amount was paid to the Ops; the complaint was false, frivolous and vexatious, therefore, liable to be dismissed under Section 26 of the Act; the District Forum did not have the jurisdiction to entertain the complaint; it was not a consumer dispute and that the complaint was barred by limited. On merits, it was denied that the complainant had any current account in the name of M/s Raiya Transport Service, Barnala with the Centurion Bank. It was also denied that the complainant deposited three instalments with Op No. 2 through Op No. 1 because OP No. 1 had no concern with OP No. 2. It was denied that the complainant was assured that at the end of three consecutive years, he will get back his basic amount of Rs. 75,00/- alongwith appreciation of 30%. The complainant was not entitled to the amounts as claimed for by him for his complaint. The complaint was without merit and it be dismissed.

4.                OP No. 2 in its written reply took the preliminary objections that the complaint was false, frivolous, liable to be dismissed under Section 26 of the Act; the complaint was not maintainable as there was no negligence or deficiency on the part of the Op; the complainant had filled the proposal form on the basis of which policy was issued and according to IRDA Regulations, 2002, the policy terms and conditions specifically provide a free look period of 15 days from the date of receipt of the policy document from which period the policy owner was entitled to review the policy terms and conditions and can opt for cancellation of the policy. However, the complainant after duly deliberating and understanding all the terms and conditions of the Life Long Unit Linked Plan vide key feature document filled the proposal form and get the policy for sum assured Rs. 2.50 lacs for a premium of Rs. 25,000/- per annum and accordingly, the policy was issued and same was delivered on 23.1.2007, which contains standard terms and conditions of the policy and it was clearly mentioned that it was Life Long Unit Linked Policy, which also explained the free look period of 15 days. The policy was due for premium on 5.1.2010. Due to non-payment of the premium the said policy went into inforce notice period on 10.2.2010. The notice period take place when the premium discontinues after 36 months from the date of coverage. During this period policy holder is provided with complete policy coverage and has option to provide advance notice where he wants to continue his policy paying further premium. The other option, the policy holder can avail or that he can either get the policy reinstated or he can surrender the said policy according to Article 14 of the Policy. The complainant again defaulted in deposit of the premium for the term 2011 and the status of the said policy changed into Auto Fore Closure on 5.10.2011 and during the Auto Fore Closure mode, the policy holder was entitled to the surrender value as per the terms and conditions of the said policy. In pursuance to the said policy a sum of Rs. 25,000/- was despatched to the policy holder on 14.12.2011. Same pleas were taken on merits. It was submitted that the complaint was without merit and it be dismissed.

5.                The parties were allowed by the learned District Forum to lead their evidence.

6.                In support of his allegations, the complainant had tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex. C-1, statement of account Ex. C-2, cheque Ex. C-3. On the other hand, opposite party No. 1 had tendered into evidence affidavit of Sunil Miglani, Br. Manager Ex. R-1. OP No. 2 had tendered into evidence affidavit of Karan Chitkara Ex. R-2, key features Ex. R-3, proposal form Ex. R-4, terms and conditions of policy Ex. R-5, proof of the delivery of the policy documents Ex. R-6.

7.                After going through the allegations in the complaint, written replies filed by the OPs, evidence and documents brought on the record, the complaint was dismissed as referred above.

8.                None was present on behalf of the complainant. We have gone through the grounds of appeal with the assistance of counsel for respondents No. 1 & 2.

9.                In the grounds of appeal, it has been stated that the amount was deposited on the intervention of Branch Manager of respondent No. 1 with the promise that in case he pays Rs. 25,000/- continuously for three years then at the end of three years he will get Rs. 75,000/- plus 30% appreciation and accordingly, he had deposited Rs. 25,000/- each for three consecutive years but at the end he had received just Rs. 25,000/- vide cheque No. 729467 dated 8.12.2011. It has been further stated that the proposal form was stated to be executed at Ludhiana but he never visited Ludhiana. It is case of cheating by employees of Op No. 1 in connivance with Op No. 2, therefore, the order so passed by the learned District Forum is liable to be set-aside. His complaint should be allowed by accepting the appeal.

10.              In case we go through the documents placed on the record by the complainant in support of his complaint Ex. C-1 is the affidavit of the complainant, which is as per the averments in the complaint. Ex. C-2 is the policy statement account, which shows three premiums paid by him i.e. Rs. 75,000/-, Ex. C-3 is the payment advice vide which a sum of Rs. 25,000/- was paid to the complainant. Whereas the Ops have placed on the record the policy terms and conditions Ex. R-3 it is Life Long Unit Linked Plan, Ex. R-4  is the proposal form vide which the sum assured is Rs. 2.50 lacs and the funds were invested in the balance fund 50% and growth fund 50%. Ex. R-5 is the standard terms and conditions of the policy. The complainant continued to deposit the amount for a period of three years, therefore, he was aware of the terms and conditions of the policy. The proposal form was filled up by the complainant in favour of OP No.2, he signed in English, which shows that he knew the English, therefore, he was in the knowledge what was contained in the proposal form. On the basis of the said proposal form, the policy was issued. He never challenged the said policy during the “Free Look Period” of 15 days. Therefore, he will be governed by the terms and conditions of the policy. It is clear that according to the terms and conditions of the policy in case he has paid three premiums regularly, in case the policy had lapsed after the premium of three years then he will be entitled to surrender value.

11.              Now the question arises what was the surrender value?

12.              According to the counsel for respondent No. 2, the surrender value to the extent of Rs. 25,000/- was sent to the complainant but he refused to accept that amount. The said payment advice is on the record as Ex. C-3. Ex. C-2 is the policy account statement and according to that statement as on 15.9.2010 the total fund value has been mentioned as Rs. 65,836/- and the policy had gone into inforce as on 10.2.2010 as per the plea taken by OP No. 2 in their written statement and as on 5.10.2011 it was converted into Auto Foreclosure. In case upto September, 2010, the fund value was Rs. 65,836/-. After auto foreclosure in October, 2011 its surrender value has been stated to be Rs. 36,971/-.

13.              During the course of arguments, the counsel for respondent No. 2 was asked to explain how the surrender value Rs. 24,518/- has been calculated when in the head note of the account statement the surrender value has been mentioned as Rs. 36,971/-. He had simply stated that it was a clerical mistake but he has not explained how it was a clerical mistake, therefore, atleast the appellant/complainant will be entitled to the surrender  value according to Rs. 36,971/- as assessed by OP No. 2. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the appellant is partly accepted that he will be entitled to the fund value of Rs. 36,971/- as on 8.12.2011. Since the full amount was not sent to the complainant, therefore, the complainant was justified not to accept that amount. The complainant will further be entitled to interest @ 9% on the sum of Rs. 36,971/- from 9.12.2011 till the date of payment alongwith Rs. 10,000/- as compensation and litigation expenses.

14.              The arguments in this appeal were heard on 15.1.2015 and the order was reserved. Now the order be communicated to the parties as per rules.

15.              The appeal could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of Court cases.

 

 (Gurcharan Singh Saran)

Presiding Judicial Member

 

January 21, 2015.                                                                                                                                                     (Jasbir Singh Gill)

as                                                                                                                                                                                       Member