CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM – X

GOVERNMENT OF N.C.T. OF DELHI

Udyog Sadan, C – 22 & 23, Institutional Area

(Behind Qutub Hotel)

New Delhi – 110 016

Case No.181/2013

SH. MUKESH GUPTA

S/O SH. CHHITARMAL GUPTA,

SHIVANI MATERNITY CLINIC,

1/9642, BEHEL STREET, HANUMAN ROAD,

SHAHDARA, DELHI-110032

…………. COMPLAINANT                                                                                           

VS.

M/S HDFC STANDARD LIFE INSURANE CO. LTD.,

22, COMMUNITY CENTER, NEW FRIEDNDS COLONY,

NEW DELHI-110025

REGD. OFF: RAMON HOUSE, H.T. PAREKH MARG,

169, BACKBAY RECLAMATION, CHURCH GATE,

MUMBAI-400020

………….. RESPONDENT

                                                                             Date of Order:08.10.2015

O R D E R

A.S. Yadav – President

It is not disputed that complainant purchased a policy named HDFC Unit linked pension plus NO.11580739 on 31.01.2008 from OP.  It is also not disputed that aforesaid policy has been withdrawn by the complainant on 23.04.2012, after four years and complainant demanded the policy amount.  The contention of the complainant is that OP informed the complainant that they have despatched a cheque on 28.0.8.2012 for a sum of Rs.2,58,289.94 by Overnite Express Courier.  However, complainant never received the aforesaid amount despite sending the legal notice.  Again no payment was received rather vide reply dated 30.10.2012, OP gave false assurance that they are doing investigation about the missing of the cheque and will resolve the matter within 14 days.  It is stated that even after expiry of 14 days OP did not contact complainant and neither solved the problem. 

OP in the reply took the plea that present complaint is misconceived and untenable both on the facts and in law and deserves to be dismissed.  OP has also taken the plea that complaint is bad for non joinder of necessary party i.e. Induslnd Bank Ltd., Preet Vihar Branch, Delhi.  OP took the plea that they have sent the cheque which was duly received by the complainant.

In the rejoinder the complainant has denied that complaint is bad for non joinder of aforesaid bank or that he has received the cheque .

We have heard Ld. Counsel for parties and carefully perused the records.

Complainant in his evidence has stated that the POD slip placed on record does not contain his signature meaning thereby that the cheque was never delivered to the complainant.  On the other hand, it is submitted on behalf of OP that the Courier Company by which the aforesaid cheque was sent to the complainant confirmed the delivery of the cheque and have also provided to OP a copy of the running sheet of the day showing the delivery of the consignment on 30.08.2012.  It is further argued that photocopy of POD filed alongwith rejoinder bearing no signature is of no significance in view of the signature on running sheet.  Complainant has denied the signature on the running sheet.

So far as contention of OP that bank is a necessary party is concerned, we are of the view that bank is not at all a necessary party as there was no privity of contract between complainant and the bank. 

Complainant specifically stated that he has not received the aforesaid amount.  In fact after receiving complaint from OP, Induslnd Bank seized the account of so called Mukesh Gupta which has taken the money from the bank by depositing the cheque.  It is significant to note that the matter was reported to the Police Station, Preet Vihar, Delhi on 10.01.2013.  The investigation is still stated to be going on.  OP has not placed any document regarding the progress of investigation.  Complainant has submitted that OP is not pursuing the matter with the police seriously. 

It is proved from the evidence on the record that complainant has not received the amount.  It is a clear cut case of deficiency in service on the part of OP. 

OP is directed to refund the amount of Rs.2,58,289.94 alongwith interest @ 10% p.a. w.e.f. 01.09.2012.  OP is further directed to pay Rs.5,000/- towards compensation and Rs.5,000/- towards litigation expenses.

Let the order be complied within one month of the receipt thereof.  The complaint stands disposed of accordingly.

Copy of order be sent to the parties, free of cost, and thereafter file be consigned to record room.

          (D.R. TAMTA)                                                                        (A.S. YADAV)

            MEMBER                                                                               PRESIDENT