Punjab

Ludhiana

EA/15/63

Shri Nirmal Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

ICICI Prudential Life Ins - Opp.Party(s)

Rajiv Abhi adv

24 Mar 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, LUDHIANA.

                             Execution Application No:63 dated 12.03.2015                                        

          Date of decision: 24.03.2023  

 

Nirmal Singh s/o Sh. Kapur Singh, Jaipur Road, Near Govt.Tubewell, Doraha, District Ludhiana, Punjab 141421.

                                                                             Decree holder/complainant.

                                                Versus

1.ICICI Prudential Life Insurance Co.Ltd., Vinod Silk Mills Compound, Chakravarthy, Ashok Nagar, Ashok Road, Kandivali (E), Mumbai 400101 through its Managing Director/Director.

2.ICICI Prudential Life Insurance Co.Ltd., Branch Office at Kotak Mahindra Building, 7^th Floor, Feroze Gandhi Market, Ludhiana through its Branch Manager.

Judgment Debtors/Opposite parties

Execution Application U/s 25 and 27 of the Consumer Protection Act.

QUORUM:

SH. SANJEEV BATRA, PRESIDENT

SH.JASWINDER SINGH, MEMBER

MS. MONIKA BHAGAT, MEMBER

 

COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES:

For decree holder/complainant                   :         Sh.Rajeev Abhi, Advocate

For judgment debtors/opposite parties       :         Sh.V.S.Mand, Advocate

 

ORDER

PER SANJEEV BATRA, PRESIDENT

1.                The decree holder/complainant has filed the present execution application under Section 25 and 27 of the Consumer Protection Act whereby he sought the enforcement of order dated 21.10.2014 passed by Learned Predecessor of this Commission in Complaint No.808 of 31.10.2013. As per the execution application, the JDs/Ops have failed to comply with the order within the stipulated period by paying the rightful claim of the complainant as per terms and conditions of the policy and also failed to pay Rs.7000/- compositely assessed for compensation and litigation costs to the complainant. By filing the present execution application, the decree holder/complainant has sought direction against the JDs/opposite parties to comply with the order dated 21.10.2014 passed by this Commission or in the alternative, prayed for issuance of recovery warrants of JDs/OPs in the interest of justice.

2.                Upon notice of this execution application, JDs/OPs have appeared and filed the objections and vehemently denied the allegations of decree holder/complainant as pleaded in the execution application and it has been submitted that as per the orders of this Hon’ble Forum, the JDs/OPs re-examined the claim of the decree holder and came to the conclusion that the decree holder was entitled for a sum of Rs.17,049.90. As per the terms and conditions of the policy, the composition of amount is reproduced herebelow:-

Particular                                                                                 Amount

Fund value on the date of foreclosure                            :                  Rs.79,866.52P

Surrender value % as per norm                                     :                  30%

Interim foreclosure value                                               :                  Rs.23959.95P

Charges                                                                :                  Rs.55906.56P

Service tax on above charge                                 :                  Rs.6708.79P

Education Cess on above charge                          :                  Rs.201.96P

Final disclosure amount                                       :                  Rs.17,049.90P

                   Further, it has been submitted that on 10.12.2014, the JDs issued two cheques in favour of decree holder amounting to Rs.18,904.41P including interest and Rs.7000/- respectively, which were sent to the decree holder at his address registered with JDs but the same were not encashed by the decree holder. However, this material fact has been concealed by the decree holder from this Commission. Further, it has been submitted that after the receipt of notice of the execution application, the JDs have once again in pursuance of order dated 21.10.2014 issued a fresh cheque amounting to Rs.30,931.60P which includes principal amount of Rs.17,049.90/-, interest @9% on the principal amount calculated from 04.10.2012 to 04.05.2016 which comes to Rs.6881.70P plus litigation cost of Rs.7000/- and the same was got encashed by the decree holder during the execution. Though, the said amount was reflected by the decree holder in their calculation sheet but till date, the decree holder failed to disclose that by adopting which method, he came to conclusion that the surrender value of the policy in dispute is Rs.90,000/- as there has not been given any calculation of the derived amount. In the end, it is prayed that the execution application may kindly be dismissed.

3.                We have heard the counsel for the parties and have also carefully gone through the record on the file.

4.                Perusal of record shows that earlier the complainant filed the Complaint No.808 of 31.10.2013 before this Commission against the OPs which was partly allowed by the Learned Predecessor of this Commission vide order dated 21.10.2014. The following observations were made by the Learned Predecessor of this Commission while partly allowing the aforesaid complaint:-

“Hence, in view of the above discussion, the present complaint is partly allowed with the directions to the OPs to re-open and to re-examine the claim of the complainant and assess the surrender value of the policy and pay the same to the complainant as per the terms and conditions of the insurance policy, within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which, Ops are liable to pay interest @9% p.a. from the date of receipt of letter dated 04.10.2013 Ex.C4 till its realization. However, OPs are at liberty to deduct the amount if any paid through cheque to the complainant. Further, OPs are burdened with compensation and litigation costs compositely assessed at Rs.7000/-(Seven thousand only) to the complainant on account of mental pain, agony and harassment suffered by him. Order qua compensation and litigation costs be also complied within 30 days of receipt of copy of the order, which be made available to the parties free of costs. File be completed and consigned to record room.”

5.                As the JDs have failed to comply with the aforesaid order, the decree holder has filed the present execution application and sought the direction against the JDs to comply with the order dated 21.10.2014.

6.                Perusal of the order under execution dated 21.10.2014 shows that there was specific directions to the Ops to pay the surrender value of the policy as per the terms and conditions of the policy after re-opening the re-examining the claim of the complainant. Perusal of the file further shows that during the pendency of this execution application on 06.06.2016, decree holder had received the cheque of Rs.30,931.60P bearing No.070421 dated 29.04.2016 drawn on ICICI Bank, Mumbai Branch. It has been specific plea raised in the objection filed by the JDs that as per the orders of this Hon’ble Forum, the JDs/OPs had re-examined the claim of the decree holder and came to the conclusion that the decree holder was entitled for a sum of Rs.17,049.90. Further, on 10.12.2014, the JDs had issued two cheques in favour of decree holder amounting to Rs.18,904.41P including interest and Rs.7000/- respectively, which were sent to the decree holder at his address registered with JDs but the same were not encashed by the decree holder. The aforesaid objections have not been denied by the decree holder by filing any reply to the same. However, calculations of the decreetal amount has been submitted by the decree holder vide which it has been stated that the decree holder is entitled to recover Rs.86,994/- but he failed to disclose how to calculate the surrender value of the policy.

7.                Since the JDs have complied with the order dated 21.10.2014 by paying the surrender value of the policy along with compensation and decree holder could not show what remains to be performed by the JDs in this case. So, it appears that the decree holder/complainant is just flogging a dead horse. In these circumstances, the execution application filed by the decree holder stands disposed of. Copies of order be supplied to the parties free of costs.

8.                File be indexed and consigned to record room.

 

(Monika Bhagat)             (Jaswinder Singh)      (Sanjeev Batra)                        Member                     Member                      President      

Announced in Open Commission.

Dated:24.03.2023.

Gurpreet Sharma