STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
U.T., CHANDIGARH
First Appeal No. | : | 20 of 2013 |
Date of Institution | : | 17.01.2013 |
Date of Decision | : | 21.03.2013 |
Ms. Kamaljit Kaur d/o Sh. Prem Chand Guru, resident of House No.2165/2, Sector 45-C, Chandigarh.
……Appellant/Complainant.
Versus
1.HDFC Standard Life Insurance Company Limited, SCO No.50-51, (SF), Sector 9-D, Chandigarh.
2.HDFC Standard Life Insurance Company Limited, 5th Floor, Eureka Towers, Mindspace Complex, Link Road, Mala (West), Mumbai.
....Respondents/Opposite Parties.
Appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
BEFORE: JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER (RETD.), PRESIDENT.
MRS. NEENA SANDHU, MEMBER.
Argued by:Sh.Harsh Manocha, Advocate for the appellant.
Sh. Rupinder Singh, Advocate Proxy for
Er. Sandeep Suri, Advocate for the respondents.
PER MRS. NEENA SANDHU, MEMBER.
This appeal is directed against the order dated 05.12.2012, rendered by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, U.T., Chandigarh (hereinafter to be called as the District Forum only), vide which it dismissed the complaint of the complainant (now appellant), with no order as to costs.
2. The facts, in brief, are that the complainant purchased one Insurance Policy bearing No.14452884 from the Opposite Parties, after paying the initial premium of Rs.20,000/-. It was stated that the Opposite Parties, failed to send the policy documents at the right place and to the right person, within the stipulated time, which was also brought to their notice vide letter dated 24.08.2011 followed by reminder dated 23.09.2011. It was further stated that NEFT Mandate Forum alongwith cancelled cheque, for refund of premium amount was also submitted to the Opposite Parties, but they neither sent the refund nor sent any communication thereafter. It was further stated that the complainant made personal visit to the office of the Opposite Parties, but the same did not yield any result. When the grievance of the complainant, was not redressed, left with no alternative, a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter to be called as the Act only), directing the Opposite Parties, to refund a sum of Rs.20,000/- alongwith interest @15% per annum from the date of its deposit till actual payment; pay Rs.30,000/- towards compensation for harassment and mental agony, and Rs.12,000/- as cost of litigation, was filed.
3. The Opposite Parties, in their written version, admitted that though the signatures of the complainant did not match yet, the Opposite Parties, considered her request and agreed to provide a refund of the policy, by treating he same within free look-in period. It was stated that the letter dated 24.08.2011 did not contain the signatures of the complainant and the same was confirmed vide letter dated 13.09.2011. It was further stated that the complainant was requested to provide necessary documentation as well as original policy document. It was further stated that the NEFT Mandate Form also did not contain the same signatures of the complainant, as were in existing on the policy documents. It was further stated that though the Opposite Parties were not, in any manner, duty bound to make the refund, yet they processed the same and offered the refund, which was refused by her even in the Forum. It was further stated that there was, thus, neither any deficiency, in rendering service, on the part of the Opposite Parties, nor they indulged into unfair trade practice. The remaining allegations, contained in the complaint were denied.
4. The parties led evidence, in support of their case.
5. After hearing the Counsel for the parties, and, on going through the evidence, and record of the case, the District Forum, dismissed the complaint, vide the impugned order, as sated above.
6. Feeling aggrieved, the appellant/complainant, has filed the instant appeal.
7. We have heard the Counsel for the parties, and, have gone through the evidence and record of the case, carefully.
8. The Counsel for the appellant/complainant submitted that, in the present case, the main dispute is relating to the non-delivery of documents and lodging of the policy in the name of the complainant fraudulently and by fabricating her signatures, which clearly amounted to unfair trade practice as also deficiency, in rendering service, on the part of the respondents/Opposite Parties, but the District Forum without giving any findings, on the main issue of non delivery of the documents, wrongly dismissed the complaint. It was further submitted that the respondents/Opposite Parties, were deficient in providing service, as the respondents/Opposite Parties, delayed the refund of amount on the ground that the signatures of the appellant/complainant on NEFT Mandate Form, did not match with that of other policy documents. It was further submitted that the letters dated 24.08.2011 and 03.01.2012 vide which NEFT Mandate Form alongwith cancelled cheque submitted by the respondents/Opposite Parties, clearly stated that the father of the appellant/complainant was the actual policy holder and the appellant/complainant being minor and just to gain more profits, she was fraudulently made the policy holder, which itself amounted to unfair trade practice. It was further submitted that the District Forum wrongly dismissed the complaint by observing that the appellant/complainant somewhere signed as Kamaljeet Kaur and somewhere as Kamaljit Kaur and it ignored the NEFT Mandate Form, which was duly attested by the Bank authorities. It was further submitted that the signatures were never disputed by the respondents/Opposite Parties prior to the filing of reply to the complaint. It was further submitted that even, otherwise, the main dispute was of non-delivery of documents, which was not dealt with by the District Forum. It was next argued that though the respondents/Opposite Parties, refunded a sum of Rs.20,000/-, during the pendency of the complaint case before the District Forum, on 09.10.2012, yet they are liable to pay compensation and costs of litigation, for physical harassment and mental agony suffered by the appellant/ complainant. He further submitted that the impugned order, passed by the District Forum, dismissing the complaint, being illegal, is liable to set aside.
9. On the other hand, the Counsel for the respondents/Opposite Parties, submitted that since the respondents/Opposite Parties, had refunded a sum of Rs.20,000/- to the appellant/complainant before the District Forum, and, therefore, nothing more was to be given to her. He further submitted that the District Forum rightly dismissed the complaint by observing so. He further submitted that the impugned order being well reasoned, is liable to be upheld.
10. Admittedly, a sum of Rs.20,000/-, paid as initial premium by the appellant/complainant towards policy No.144562884, was refunded by the respondents/Opposite Parties, during the pendency of the complaint, before the District Forum, on 09.10.2012, as is apparent from the zimini order dated 09.10.2012, which is reproduced hereunder: -
“PRESENT:
Sh. Harsh Manocha, Counsel for complainant.
Sh. Sandeep Suri, Counsel for OPs.
Dated the 9th day of October, 2012.
Sh. Harsh Manocha, Counsel for complainant has made the following statement recorded separately:-
“I have received cheque bearing No.153257, dated 17.07.2012 for Rs.20,000/- under protest.”
Sh. Sandeep Suri, Counsel for OPs filed his Vakalatnama, reply and evidence.
In case the complainant wants to file rejoinder, the same be filed in the office within a week with advance copy to counsel for OPs.
To come up for oral arguments on 31.10.2012.”
11. Now, the only question, which is left for our determination, is as to whether, the appellant/complainant, is entitled to compensation or not. Admittedly, an amount of Rs.20,000/- was refunded by the respondents/Opposite Parties, after the filing of the complaint, as also after a period of almost one year from 15.11.2011 i.e. the date of receipt of request letter for cancellation of the aforesaid policy, by them as is clear from letter dated 23.11.2011, at Page 24 of District Forum file. Had this amount of Rs.20,000/- been refunded by them before filing the complaint on 27.07.2012, the complainant would not have filed the complaint and would have been saved of the expenses, which she incurred in pursuing the litigation. The respondents/Opposite Parties refunded the said amount during the pendency of the complaint, due to which, she suffered a lot of physical harassment and mental agony. For this act of deficiency, in rendering service, on the part of respondents/Opposite Parties, the appellant/ complainant is definitely entitled to compensation, as also costs of litigation in lump sum to the tune of Rs.8,000/-. In these circumstances, the impugned order, passed by the District Forum, dismissing the complaint, without considering the delay in refunding Rs.20,000/-, is legally not sustainable in the eyes of law.
12. No other point, was urged, by the Counsel for the parties.
13. The impugned order, therefore, suffers from illegality and perversity, warranting the interference of this Commission.
14. For the reasons recorded above, the appeal filed by the appellant/complainant, is accepted with costs. The impugned order, rendered by the District Forum, is set aside, and the complaint filed by the appellant/complainant, before the District Forum, is partly allowed as under: -
(i) The respondents/Opposite Parties are directed to pay a consolidated compensation of Rs.8,000/- to the complainant, which also includes the cost of litigation.
15. This order be complied with, by the respondents/ Opposite Parties, within a period of 45 days, from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which, they shall be liable to pay the aforementioned amount of Rs.8,000/- alongwith interest @12% p.a. from the date of filing the complaint i.e.27.07.2012, till the date of actual payment to the appellant/complainant.
16. Certified Copies of this order be sent to the parties, free of charge.
17. The file be consigned to Record Room, after completion.
Pronounced.
21st March, 2013.
Sd/-
[JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER (RETD.)]
PRESIDENT
Sd/-
[NEENA SANDHU]
MEMBER
Ad
STATE COMMISSION
(First Appeal No.20 of 2013)
Argued by:Sh.Harsh Manocha, Advocate for the appellant.
Sh. Rupinder Singh, Advocate Proxy for
Er. Sandeep Suri, Advocate for the respondents.
Dated the 21st day of March, 2013.
ORDER
Vide our detailed order of the even date, recorded separately, this appeal filed by the appellant/complainant, has been partly allowed, with costs, as per directions.
(NEENA SANDHU) MEMBER | (JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER(RETD.)) PRESIDENT | |
Ad
