Haryana

Sonipat

CC/351/2015

Umesh Kumar S/o Baldev Krishan - Complainant(s)

Versus

ICICI Bank Through its Branch Manager - Opp.Party(s)

Rahul Lakra

25 Apr 2016

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

SONEPAT.

 

 

Complaint No.351 of 2015

Instituted on: 18.09.2015                 

Date of order: 25.04.2016

 

1.Umesh Kumar Sharma son of Baldev Krishan,

2.Vineet Sharma son of Umesh Kr Sharma,

Both the residents of 220A, Eight Marla, Old DC road, Opp. Diwan Atta Chakki, Sonepat.

…Complainants.          Versus

1.ICICI Bank (through its Branch Manager) Sikka Colony, Delhi road, Sonepat.

2.ICICI Prudential Life Ins. Co. Ltd. (through its Branch Manager) Vinod Silk Mills Compound, Ashok Nagar, Chakravarti Ashok road, Kandivali (East) Mumbai-400101.

 

                                      …Respondents.

 

COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 12 OF

THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986

 

Argued by:Complainant Umesh Kumar Sharma in person with

Shri Rahul Lakra Advocate.

          Smt.Kamlesh Khatri,  Adv. for respondents.

 

Before    :Nagender Singh-President. 

          Prabha Wati-Member.

         

 

O R D E R

 

          Complainants have filed the present complaint against the respondents alleging therein that the complainant no.1 agreed to deposit Rs.3000/- per month for his son Vineet Sharma, complainant no.2.  The complainant  no.1 handed over a cheque of Rs.36000/- on 12.10.2012 from his current account no.662305004870 and the said cheque was deposited in saving account no.662301438070 of complainant no.2.  The complainant no.1 has received a letter dated 8.3.2014 from respondent no.2 and then it came to the notice of the complainant no.1 about the investment of Rs.36000/-.  But till 9/2012, neither the respondent no.1 nor the respondent no.2 have sent any receipt of new account or the policy papers of the said amount.    However, the respondents asked to deposit Rs.35417/- instead of monthly installment of Rs.3000/- month.  Thus, there is a grave deficiency in service on the part of the respondents.  So, they have come to this Forum and has filed the present complaint.

2.        The respondents appeared and they filed their reply separately.

          In reply, the respondent no.1  has submitted that

the respondent no.1 has no role to play in the matter.  The bank has made the payment to the life insurance company from the account of the complainant as per the instructions.  ICICI Bank Ltd. is a banker only and not an insurance company. The complainant no.2 had issued a cheque no.005422 dated 12.10.2012 for Rs.36000/- which was drawn on respondent no.1 from the banker of complainant no.2 Vineet Sharma.  There is no deficiency in service of any kind on the part of the respondent no.1 and thus, prayed for the dismissal of the present complaint.

          The respondent no.2 in its reply has submitted that on the basis of the proposal form, the subject policy was issued to the complainant no.2.  Thus, the allegations leveled in the complaint by the complainants are altogether wrong, false and not tenable in the eyes of laws.   For obtaining the policy, the complainant no.2 had availed the services of an independent corporate agent ICICI bank Ltd. The subject policy was issued strictly as per the duly filled in and signed application form received by the company with a yearly premium of Rs.34900/-.  The complainant no.2 was required to pay an annual premium of Rs.34900/- for 7 years and coverage term was 15 years.  The complainant no.2 has paid only first year premium and has decided not to pay his further premium. As per the terms of the policy contract, if the policy is not suitable, the policy holder may get his/her policy cancelled by returning the policy and policy documents within 15 days (free look period) from the day the policy holder received the policy.  The policy no.17078508 was issued on 14.10.2012 to complainant no.2 Vineet Sharma, who retained the policy documents and did not raise any objection towards the policy.  The status of the policy is foreclosed as per clause 3 of the terms and conditions of the policy.   The subject policy was issued in 10/2010 and the policy documents were duly delivered in the same month.  But the present complaint has been filed in 9/2015 and thus, there is inordinate delay on the part of the complainant no.2 in filing the present complaint.  The complainant is not entitled for any relief and thus, prayed for the dismissal of the present complaint.

3.        We have heard the complainant no.1 in person and learned counsel for both the parties at length.  All the documents have been perused very carefully and minutely.  

         Ld. Counsel for the respondent no.1 has submitted that the respondent no.1 has no role to play in the matter.  The bank has made the payment to the life insurance company from the account of the complainant as per the instructions.  ICICI Bank Ltd. is a banker only and not an insurance company. The complainant no.2 had issued a cheque no.005422 dated 12.10.2012 for Rs.36000/- which was drawn on respondent no.1 from the banker of complainant no.2 Vineet Sharma.  There is no deficiency in service of any kind on the part of the respondent no.1 and thus, prayed for the dismissal of the present complaint.

          Ld. Counsel for the respondent no.2 has submitted that on the basis of the proposal form, the subject policy was issued to the complainant no.2.  Thus, the allegations leveled in the complaint by the complainants are altogether wrong, false and not tenable in the eyes of laws.   For obtaining the policy, the complainant no.2 had availed the services of an independent corporate agent ICICI bank Ltd. The subject policy was issued strictly as per the duly filled in and signed application form received by the company with a yearly premium of Rs.34900/-.  The complainant no.2 was required to pay an annual premium of Rs.34900/- for 7 years and coverage term was 15 years.  The complainant no.2 has paid only first year premium and has decided not to pay his further premium. As per the terms of the policy contract, if the policy is not suitable, the policy holder may get his/her policy cancelled by returning the policy and policy documents within 15 days (free look period) from the day the policy holder received the policy.  The policy no.17078508 was issued on 14.10.2012 to complainant no.2 Vineet Sharma, who retained the policy documents and did not raise any objection towards the policy.  The status of the policy is foreclosed as per clause 3 of the terms and conditions of the policy.   The subject policy was issued in 10/2010 and the policy documents were duly delivered in the same month.  But the present complaint has been filed in 9/2015 and thus, there is inordinate delay on the part of the complainant no.2 in filing the present complaint.  The complainant is not entitled for any relief and thus, prayed for the dismissal of the present complaint.

          The complainant no.1 in person has submitted before this Forum that he was willing only to invest in a recurring account in which he can deposit Rs.3000/- per month for his son Vineet Sharma.

          We have perused the documents Annexure C4 and C8, in which, the complainant no.1 has taken the same stand as has been submitted before this Forum that he was willing only to invest in a recurring account in which he can deposit Rs.3000/- per month for his son Vineet Sharma.  So, it is clear that the respondents have cheated the complainant no.1.  Further more, the respondents have failed to produce any record which may go to prove that the policy in question was ever handed over to the complainant.  The respondents have also failed to produce any postal receipt or courier receipt to prove the mode by which the policy in question was sent to the complainant.  Thus, it is held that the complainants have been able to prove the deficiency in service on the part of the respondents and the complainant no.1 and 2 are entitled to get the refund of Rs.36000/- from the respondents.  Accordingly, we hereby direct the respondents to refund the amount of Rs.36000/- (Rs.thirty six thousand) to the complainants within a period of 60 days from the date of passing of this order, otherwise, the above said amount shall fetch interest at the rate of 09% per annum from the date of filing of the present complaint till its realization. Further the respondents are directed to compensate the complainants to the tune of Rs.3000/- only (Rs.three thousand only) for rendering deficient services, for harassment and under the head of litigation expenses.

         With these observations, findings and directions, the present complaint stands allowed.

         Certified copy of this order be provided to

both the parties free of costs.

File be consigned to the record-room.

 

(Prabha Wati)                    (Nagender Singh)

Member, DCDRF                      President

    SNP                             DCDRF SNP.

ANNOUNCED: 25.04.2016