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.544/2008
MR. AMIT KUMAR GARG
S/O SH. HARI BILAS GARG
R/O B-567, DAKSHIN PURI,
SECTOR-5, NEAR VIRAT CINEMA,
DR. AMBEDKAR NAGAR,
NEW DELHI-110062
…………. COMPLAINANT
Vs.
- ICICI PRUDENTIAL LIFE INSURANCE CO. LTD.
NO.6, LOCAL SHOPPING COMPLEX,
COMMUNITY CENTRE,
NEAR BIRLA VIDHYA NIKETAN SCHOOL,
PUSHP VIHAR, NEW DELHI-110062
- SH. ABHIJIT PHARALE
MANAGER – CUSTOMER SERVICE
I.C.I.C.I. PRUDENTIAL LIFE INSURANCE CO.
VIDEO CON TOWER,
JHANDEWALAN, NEW DELHI
- SH. K.V. KAMAT
CHAIRMAN
I.C.I.C.I. PRUDENTIAL LIFE INSURANCE CO.
HO: ICICI PRULIFE TOWERS,
1089, APPASAHEB MARATHE MARG,
PRABHADEVI, MUMBAI-400025
- CANARA BANK
TRIVENI, PHASE-II, SHEIKH SARAI,
NEW DELHI
…………..RESPONDENTS
Date of Order:07.01.2019
O R D E R
A.S. Yadav - President
The case of the complainant is that on 13.12.2007 he had taken ICICI Prudential Life Insurance, life time gold policy OP. The policy was upto 13.12.2017. Monthly premium of Rs.2,000/- was to be paid and the last premium was to be paid on 13.11.2017 and the complainant was assured a sum of Rs.1,20,000/- after expiry of the term. The premium amount was to be paid his banker Canara Bank having their branch at Triveni Phase-II, Sheikh Sarai, New Delhi. The amount was paid from the account no.1768108000052 through ECS. On 17.05.2008, the complainant received a letter from OP stating that OP has not received the premium amount of Rs.2,000/- for the month of March 2008 from the bankers of the complainant on account of ‘insufficient funds’. In that letter it was further stated that OP has confirmed with the bankers of the complainant and it was directed that the amount should be credited within five working days and since OP has not received the amount hence the policy in question has been put to inactive and life cover has been ceased. In the said letter the complainant was directed to despot Rs.6,000/- for the month of March 2008 till May 2008 by way of cash/cheque/demand draft.
It is further stated that OP had also sent statement of accounts dated 13.03.2008 wherein at page 2 it was mentioned that the cheque of the complainant has been dishonoured as per the list. After receiving the letter the complainant not only felt surprised but also stunned to know that his accounts were clearly showing withdrawal in the name of OP. On 22.05.2008 the complainant requested his banker to give the details and his banker through their Chief Manager clearly stated that an amount of Rs.2000/- has been debited to the account of OP. It is stated that it is clear that OP wanted to cheat the public at large. Terming the action of OP as deficiency in service, the present complaint has been filed whereby the complainant has prayed that an enquiry against OP be initiated and OP be directed to pay compensation as well as litigation expenses.
OP-1 and OP-2 in their reply stated that no cause of action arose in favour of the complainant against them by filing the present complaint. It is stated that OP received premium till 13.02.2008 via ECS whereas OP-1 and OP-2 were unable to collect the premium amount of Rs.2000/- for the month of March 2008 through complainant’s banker i.e. OP-4 via ECS facility as transaction was dishonoured, the reason being ‘insufficient funds’. The copy of R7 report received from the bank of OP-1 and OP-2 has been enclosed. It is further submitted that OP-1 and OP-2 talked to Mr. Suresh Kumar from Canara Bank on telephone no. 011-29250232 who stated that complainant’s account was debited but they wrongly marked the transaction as reject and the said amount of Rs.2000/- has been credited back to the customer’s account on 15.10.2008. It is prayed that the complaint be dismissed.
OP-4 in its reply took the plea that there was no deficiency in service on its part. It is submitted that as per the instruction of the complainant, OP debited the said amount from his account and sent it to account of the ICICI Prudential Life Insurance Company Ltd. It is prayed that the complaint be dismissed.
We have gone through the case file carefully.
It is clear from the letter dated 22.05.2008 of Canara Bank that an amount of Rs.2000/- has been debited from the account of the complainant on 13.03.2008 (ref ECS-TP-ICICI-Prudential). As it is evident that the amount of Rs.2000/- is deducted from the account of the complainant and there was no reason for OP for sending letter dated 17.05.2008 regarding non receipt of the amount. OP-1 and OP-2 have failed to prove the averments made by them in their reply regarding their talk with Mr. Suresh Kumar of Canara Bank who has stated that the complainant’s account was debited but they wrongly marked the transaction as reject. Once the amount has been debited, naturally it has gone to the account of OP-1 and OP-2. There was no reason for OP-1 and OP-2 to send the letter dated 17.05.2008 regarding non receipt of the amount. It is clear cut case of deficiency in service on the part of OP-1 and OP-2.
The interest of justice will suffice if a compensation of Rs.25,000/- is awarded to the complainant.
OP-1 is directed to pay a sum of Rs.25,000/- to the complainant towards compensation within one month of the receipt of the order. If this amount is not paid within one month, it will carry interest @ 9% p.a.
Let the order be complied with 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.
(H.C. SURI) (A.S. YADAV)
MEMBER PRESIDENT
