Punjab

Sangrur

CC/141/2019

Pritam Kaur - Complainant(s)

Versus

HDFC Bank - Opp.Party(s)

Sh.Sonu Singla

24 Sep 2024

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SANGRUR .

                                                                        Complaint No. 141

 Instituted on:   02.04.2019

                                                                         Decided on:     24.09.2024

 

Pritam Kaur wife of Nachattar Singh, resident of House No.350/2, Ward No.2, Dhuri 148024 (Punjab).

                                                         …. Complainant 

                                                 Versus

1.             HDFC Bank through its Branch Manager, Dhuri Pind Road, Bank Street, Dhuri 148024.

2.             Nishant Sharma official of HDFC Bank, Dhuri Pind Road, Bank Street, Dhuri 148024.

3.             Arvind Pandey authorized Agent of HDFC Life Insurance Company Limited (Formerly HDFC Standard Life Insurance Company Limited) C/O HDFC Bank, Dhuri Pind Road,  Bank Street, Dhuri 148024.

4.             HDFC Life Insurance Company Limited (Formerly HDFC Standard Life Insurance Company Limited) through its M.D. Lodha Excelus, 13^th Floor, Apollo Mills Compound, N.M.Joshi Marg, Mahalaxmi, Mumbai 400011.

                                                        ..Opposite parties.

 

For the complainants   :       Shri Sonu Singla, Adv.

For OP No.4              :       Shri Vinay Jindal, Adv.

For OP No.1, 2&3      :       Exparte.

 

Quorum                                           

Jot Naranjan Singh Gill,                  :President

Sarita Garg,                                     :Member

Kanwaljeet Singh,                            :Member

 

ORDER

SARITA GARG, MEMBER

 

1.             Complainant  has preferred the present complaint against the opposite parties on the ground that in October, 2013, OP number 2 and 3 being representatives and agent of the OP number 1 and 4 approached the complainant and allured to invest Rs.50,000/- annually then the complainant will get about Rs.1,42,000/- as interest after the period of five years as such the complainant agreed to the same.   Further case of complainant is that the complainant is having a saving account number 14801000002360 with OP number  1 and the first instalment of Rs.50,000/- was deducted on 23.10.2023 from the above said account and thereafter the complainant paid all the instalments to the OPs and in this way the complainant paid five instalments of premium i.e. total amount of Rs.2,48,194/- in the period of five years and the OP was to pay Rs.3,90,194/- on maturity after the period of five years i.e. in the year 2018, but grievance of the complainant is that the Ops paid only an amount of Rs.2,47,705/- and withheld the amount of Rs.1,42,489/- without any reason. Though the complainant requested the OPs so many times to pay the said amount of Rs.1,42,489/-, but all in vain. Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the Ops, the complainant has prayed that the Ops be directed to pay to the complainant the amount of Rs.1,42,489/- along with interest and further claimed compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- on account of mental tension, agony, pain  and further an amount of Rs.20,000/- was claimed as litigation expenses.

2.             Record shows that OPs number 1 and 2 were proceeded against exparte on 06.09.2019, whereas OP number 3 was proceeded against exparte on 21.09.2021, as OP number 3 failed to put appearance despite service by way of publication in the newspaper.

3.             In reply filed by OP number 4, legal  objections are taken up on the grounds that intricate questions of law and facts are involved in the present complaint, which requires voluminous documents and evidence for determination of the case,  that the complainant has no cause of action to file the present complaint, that the complainant has concealed material facts and documents from this commission and that the complaint is not maintainable before this Commission. On merits, it has been admitted that the complainant took the policy in question, however, it has been denied that the OP ever assured the complainant that an amount of Rs.1,42,000/- as interest would be paid. Further the complainant had agreed that the policy is of five years with annual premium of Rs.49,999/- with sum assured of Rs.1,59,367/-. The other allegations levelled in the complaint have been denied in toto. Lastly, OP number 4 has prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

4.             The learned counsel for the complainant has produced Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-7 copies of documents and affidavit and closed evidence. On the other hand, the learned counsel for OP number 4 has produced Ex.OP4/1 to Ex.OP4/7 copies of documents and affidavit and closed evidence.

5.             We have gone through the pleadings put in by the complainant and OP number 4  along with their supporting documents with their valuable assistance.

6.             The learned counsel for the complainant has argued vehemently  that the complainant took a policy from the OP number 4 whereby the complainant deposited an amount of Rs.2,48,194/-  in the period of five years in five instalments as per the policy and in turn the OP number 4 was to pay an amount of Rs.1,42,000/- as interest on the above said amount and in total the OP number 4 was to pay Rs.3,90,194/- to the complainant, but the OP number 4 paid only an amount of Rs.2,47,705/- and withheld an amount of Rs.1,42,489/- without any reason as such the complainant has prayed for a direction to the OP number 4 to pay an amount of Rs.1,42,489/-.  On the other hand, the stand of the OP number 4 is that the OP number 4 never assured/promised to the complainant to pay such an amount of Rs.1,42,000/- as interest on the deposited amount.  Further we have perused the copy of insurance policy Ex.OP4/2, but it nowhere shows that the OP number 4 is  liable to pay Rs.1,42,000/- being interest on the said amount.   On the other hand, we find that the complainant had deposited an amount of Rs.2,48,194/- with the OP number 4  in five instalments, but the OP number 4 refunded to the complainant an amount of Rs.2,47,705/- only even an amount of Rs.489/- less than the deposited amount by the complainant with the OP number 4.  There is no explanation from the side of OP number 4 that why the amount less than the deposited amount was paid to the complainant after the period of five years. As such, we are of the considered opinion that if interest @ 7% per annum is paid to the complainant on the so deposited amount then the interest of justice would be met.  

7.             Accordingly, we direct OP number 4 to pay to the complainant interest @ 7% per on the amount so deposited with OP number 4 from the date of deposit till its refund to the complainant. We further direct OP number 4 to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.5,000/- in lieu of compensation for mental tension, agony and harassment as well as litigation expenses.

8.             This order shall be complied with by OP number 4 within a period of sixty days of receipt of copy of this order.

9.             The complaint could not be decided within the statutory time period due to heavy pendency of cases.

10.            Copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to the records after its due compliance. 

                        Pronounced.

 

                September 24, 2024.

 

           (Kanwaljeet Singh)  (Sarita Garg) (Jot Naranjan Singh Gill)

                  Member               Member                   President