THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

AMRITSAR

Consumer Complaint No. 423 of 14

Date of Institution: 05.08.2014

Date of Decision: 13.05.2015

Mukhtar Singh son of Jagir Singh (Khela) R/o Village Dhariwal, P.O. Bagga, Tehsil Ajnala District Amritsar

...Complainant

Versus

HDFC Standard Life Insurance Company Ltd., Mall Road Branch, Amritsar through its Manager/Director/authorized signatory

....Opposite  Party

Complaint under section 12/13 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986

Present :      For the complainant : Sh. Surinder Kumar Saini, Advocate

For the opposite party: Sh. Munish Kohli, Advocate

Quorum:    Sh. Bhupinder Singh, President

Mr.Anoop Sharma,Member

Order dictated by :-

Bhupinder Singh, President

1.       Present complaint has been filed by Mukhtar Singh son of Jagir Singh (Khela) under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act alleging therein that he took a policy HDFC SL Sampoorn Smridhi Plan No.1636731 from Opposite Party and thereafter, on the request of the complainant, the Opposite Party cancelled the said policy and promised to refund the amount i.e. Rs.25,000/- to the complainant within few days. Complainant alleges that on 15.3.2014, he received a letter from Opposite Party in which they have written that the Opposite Party have sent a cheque bearing No. 375694 dated d21.11.2013 amounting to Rs.25,000/- drawn on HDFC Bank Limited, Branch Rajasansi, Amritsar through courier on 11.11.2013 and alleged in their letter that the same has been  encashed/  credited  in account on 3.12.2013 which is wrong and incorrect. No such cheque as alleged in the letter dated 15.3.2014 ever received by the complainant nor any cheque has been encashed/ credited in the account of the complainant. The complainant approached the Opposite Party alongwith bank statement and requested them to make the payment in question to the complainant, but the Opposite Party did not pay any heed to the request of the complainant.  Alleging the same to be deficiency in service, complaint was filed seeking directions to the opposite party to refund the amount of Rs.25,000/-. Compensation and litigation expenses were also demanded.

2.       On notice, opposite party appeared and filed written version in which it was submitted that the Opposite Party has acted in due course in a lawful manner while discharging their official duties as per the contract and for that reason, the Opposite Party can not be held liable for any deficiency in service. In fact, the complainant had in connivance with Mukhtar Singh son of Pritam Singh, resident of Village: Dhariwal, Post Office: Bagga, Tehsil: Ajnala, District Amritsar concocted false story for extracting money from the Opposite Party by unlawful manner. The complainant in connivance with Mukhtar Singh son of Pritam Singh, resident of Village: Dhariwal, Post Office: Bagga, Tehsil: Ajnala, District Amritsar wants to get advantage of his identical name, address, village etc., so as to get his refund  twice  illegally. The complainant had made request dated 11.11.2013 to cancel the policy and the same was accepted and cheque bearing No. 375694 dated 21.11.2013 was delivered to the complainant through speed post having No.AWB-EM9535310301N. The complainant deliberately speaking  lie before this Forum for his unethical benefits. While denying and controverting other allegations, dismissal of complaint was prayed.

3.       Complainant tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex.C1 alongwith documents Ex.C2 to Ex.C5 and closed the evidence on behalf of the complainant.

4.       Opposite Party tendered into evidence affidavit of Sh.Amit Khanna Ex.OP1 alongwith documents Ex.OP2 to Ex.OP18 and closed the evidence on behalf of the Opposite Party.

5.       We have carefully gone through the pleadings of the parties, arguments advanced by the ld.counsel for the parties and have appreciated the evidence produced on record by both the parties with the valuable assistance of the ld.counsel for both the parties

6.       From the record i.e.pleadings of the parties and the evidence produced on record by both the parties, it is clear that complainant got policy bearing No. 16366731 i.e. HDFC SL Sampoorn Samridhi Plan from the opposite party. But the complainant was not satisfied with that plan. The complainant requested the opposite party to cancel the aforesaid policy. He surrendered the policy to the opposite party. The opposite party cancelled the said policy on the request of the complainant and sent cheque of Rs. 25,000/- in the name of the complainant. The complainant did not receive the cheque and he approached the opposite party. The opposite party sent letter dated 15.3.2014 Ex.C-2 to the complainant telling that they had sent cheque bearing No. 375694 dated 21.11.2013 for Rs. 25000/- drawn on HDFC Bank Ltd , Branch Rajasansi, Amritsar through courier (speed post) on 11.11.2013. The said cheque has been got encashed /credited in the account of Mukhtar Singh on 3.12.2013. The complainant alleges that no such cheque has been received by the complainant nor he has got the same encashed nor credited in the account of the complainant. The complainant approached the opposite party again for the refund of the amount , but the opposite party did not pay any heed to the request of the complainant. Ld.counsel for the complainant submitted that all this amounts to deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party.

7.       Whereas the opposite party alleges that the complainant in connivance with one Mukhtar Singh son of Pritam Singh resident of village Dhariwal, P.O.Bagga, Tehsil: Ajnala District Amritsar encashed the aforesaid cheque . The complainant in connivance with that Mukhtar Singh son of Pritam Singh wants to get advantage of his identical name, address, village etc., to get his refund twice from the opposite party. The complainant made request dated 11.11.2013 to cancel the policy and the same was accepted by the opposite party and cheque bearing No. 375694 dated 21.11.2013 was sent to the complainant through speed post bearing No. AWB-EM953531030IN which was delivered to the complainant. Even the complainant had not filed any complaint against said Mukhtar Singh son of Pritam Singh resident of same village Dhariwal. All this shows that the complainant in connivance with his neighbour wants to get the refund twice from the opposite party. Opposite party further submitted that complaint is bad for non joinder of necessary party as the complainant had not intentionally made Mukhtar Singh son of Pritam Singh resident of the same village as party to the present complaint which is a very much necessary party for deciding the present complaint. Present complaint cannot be adjudicated without getting reply from said Mukhtar Singh son of Pritam Singh co-villager of the complainant. Ld.counsel for the opposite party submitted that there is no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party qua the complainant.

8.       From the entire above, we have come to the conclusion that the complainant got  policy bearing No.1636731 i.e. HDFC SL Sampoorn Smridhi Plan from Opposite Party, but the complainant was not satisfied with that plan and he requested the  Opposite Party for cancellation of the said policy and refund of the amount paid by the  complainant. The Opposite Party resultantly cancelled the said policy on the request of the complainant and prepared cheque of  Rs. 25,000/- in the name of the complainant and sent the same to the complainant, but said cheque did not reach the complainant. The complainant approached  the Opposite Party and then Opposite Party sent letter  dated 15.3.2014 Ex.C-2 to the complainant telling that they had sent cheque bearing No. 375694 dated 21.11.2013 for Rs. 25,000/- drawn on HDFC Bank Ltd, Branch Rajasansi, Amritsar through speed post on 11.11.2013. The said cheque has been got encashed /credited in the account of Mukhtar Singh on 3.12.2013. The Opposite Party has come to know that said cheque did not reach the complainant. However, same has been received by one Mukhtar Singh son of Pritam Singh, resident of same Village i.e. village: Dhariwal, Post Office: Bagga, Tehsil: Ajnala, District Amritsar and he got the same encashed. So, it stands fully proved on record that said cheque in question bearing No.  375694 dated 21.11.2013 for Rs. 25,000/-  was not delivered to the complainant nor received by the complainant, rather the same has reached into wrong hands i.e. in the hands of Mukhtar Singh son of Pritam Singh, resident of Village: Dhariwal, Post Office: Bagga, Tehsil: Ajnala, District Amritsar and he mischievously got the same encashed by depositing the same in his account. The Opposite Party was duty bound to return the amount of the cancelled policy  to the complainant/ policy holder   until said amount reached/ paid to the complainant, opposite Party can not absolve from its duty. If in the way/transit some unscrupulous person mischievously got the cheque and get that amount, it can not be held that Opposite Party has paid this amount to the complainant, rather it shall be held that the amount has not been paid to the complainant i.e. policy holder by the opposite party. The Opposite Party is liable to pay this amount of Rs.25,000/- to the complainant. Until this amount has been received by the complainant, the Opposite Party can not absolve itself from its duty. Therefore, the Opposite Party is liable to pay this amount of Rs.25,000/- to the complainant. However, the Opposite Party is at liberty to lodge a complaint against  that Mukhtar Singh son of Pritam Singh, resident of Village: Dhariwal, Post Office: Bagga, Tehsil: Ajnala, District Amritsar before District Authorities/ Police, who had mischievously by impersonation had got the amount of the said cheque encashed/ credited in his account fully knowing that this amount does not belong to him and recover the same from said Mukhtar Singh son of Pritam Singh, resident of Village: Dhariwal, Post Office: Bagga, Tehsil: Ajnala, District Amritsar.

9.       Consequently, the complaint is partly allowed and the Opposite Party is directed to pay the amount of Rs.25,000/- to the complainant within one month from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which the Opposite Party shall be liable to pay interest @ 9% per annum on this amount from the date of filing  the present complaint till the payment is made to the complainant. However, keeping in view the peculiar circumstances of the case, the parties are left to bear their own costs.  Copies of the order be furnished to the parties free of costs. File is ordered to be consigned to the record room. Case could not be disposed of within the stipulated period due to heavy pendency of the cases in this Forum.

Dated: 13-05-2015.                                                               (Bhupinder Singh)                                                                                                                   President

hrg                                                                    (Anoop Sharma)

                                    Member