DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BARNALA, PUNJAB.

 

Complaint Case No : CC/74/2020

Date of Institution : 03.03.2020

Date of Decision : 25.01.2021

Pardeep Kumar aged about 49 years son of Raj Kumar, C/o M/s P.K. Watch and Radio Company, Sadar Bazaar, Near Bhagat Singh Chowk, Barnala.    …Complainant

Versus

1. ICICI Prudential Life Insurance Company Limited, Leela Bhawan, Above ICICI Bank Limited, Patiala through its Branch Manager.  

2. ICICI Prudential Life Insurance Company Limited, Registered Office, ICICI Pru Life Towers, 1089, Appasaheb Marathe Marg, Prabhadevi, Mumbai (Maharashtra)-400025 through its M.D.

3. ICICI Bank Limited, Pacca College Road, Near Old Bus Stand, Barnala through its Branch Manager.

…Opposite Parties 

Complaint Under The Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

Present: Ms. Birpal Kaur counsel for complainant.

Sh. KK Jain counsel for opposite parties No. 1 and 2.

Sh. SM Gupta counsel for opposite party No. 3. 

Quorum.-

1. Sh. Kuljit Singh : President

2. Sh. Tejinder Singh Bhangu : Member

(ORDER BY SHRI KULJIT SINGH PRESIDENT):

    The complainant Pardeep Kumar filed the present complaint under the Consumer Protection Act 1986 (as amended up to date) against ICICI Prudential Life Insurance Company Limited, Patiala and others. (in short the opposite parties). 

2. The facts leading to the present complaint as stated by the complainant are that the complainant paid Rs. 33,000/- to the opposite parties in installments i.e. Rs. 6,000/- on 21.8.2006, Rs. 6,000/- on 25.8.2006, Rs. 6,000/- on 5.2.2007, Rs. 6,000/- on 31.3.2007 and Rs. 9,000/- on 12.7.2007 to invest the amount in new project for three times of the amount after twelve years or in alternative at the rate of 15% per annum. The Agent of opposite parties issued the receipts against the payment of above mentioned amounts but  except these receipts no other document was issued by the opposite parties. Further, in the 1st week of November 2019 the complainant made a telephonic call to the given numbers by the Agent but all numbers were not existence. So, he visited the office of respondent No. 3 for getting the maturity amount and showed the receipts to the official of respondent No. 3  who told the complainant to visit opposite party No. 1 who told that no amount is payable under the said investment as the amount was invested in Life Insurance Policy, wherein they were required to pay the premium regularly for twenty years but the complainant did not pay the premium regularly so the policy was lapsed and now nothing is payable. The complainant then requested the opposite party No. 1 to refund his amount alongwith interest but he flatly refused to help the complainant because as per terms and conditions of the policy no amount is payable. The complainant never received any policy bond or terms and conditions from their company and only payment receipts were issued to them. The act of the opposite parties is clear cut deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on their part. Hence, the present complaint is filed seeking the following reliefs.-

1) The opposite parties may be directed to pay the amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- as agreed by the Agent of opposite parties at the time of investment or in the alternative refund the amount of Rs. 33,000/- alongwith interest at the rate of 15% per annum from the date of investment i.e. 21.8.2006 till realization.   

2) To pay Rs. 50,000/- on account of compensation for mental agony and  harassment.             

3) To pay Rs. 11,000/- as litigation expenses.  

4) Any other fit relief may also be given. 

3. Upon notice of this complaint, the opposite parties No. 1 and 2 filed written reply taking a specific legal objection that the present complaint is hopelessly time barred by limitation, the Commission need not go into the merits of the case and complaint may be dismissed. The complainant purchased the policy in 2006 which was foreclosed in the year 2009 and complainant could have raised any allegation regarding the subject policies within two years from the date of foreclosure i.e. till September 2011. The complaint has been filed in 2020 so the same is outside the statute of limitation and cannot be entertained by this Commission.  

4. On merits, the opposite parties No. 1 and 2 submitted that they sent the policy documents at the registered address of the complainant. In policy bearing No. 03265598 the answering opposite party sent the policy documents to the complainant on 24.8.2006 via Blue Dart Courier which was duly received on 29.8.2006 and in policy No. 03295726 the sent the policy document on 1.9.2006 via Blue Dart Courier which was duly received on 4.9.2006 so ground of non receipt of policy documents is an afterthought. Further, the complainant alleged that he approached the company in 2019 from where he came to know that the money was invested in insurance policies however the record does not show any letter sent by the complainant in 2019 or at any time prior to that. The policies were issued to the complainant when he was fully satisfied with the terms and conditions of the policies. The proposal forms were received duly signed by the complainant after reading and understanding the features of the same. Further, only being satisfied with the terms of the policies the complainant paid the initial premium and subsequent premiums. The complainant was required to pay regular monthly premiums for 20 years however the opposite parties received only 11 monthly premiums from the complainant.  Rest of the averments of the complaint are denied by the opposite parties No. 1 and 2 and prayed for the dismissal of the present complaint with costs. 

5. The opposite party No. 3 also filed written reply taking specific legal objection that present complaint is not filed within limitation. The complainant has never approached the company or bank with any grievance since 2006  so the same is barred by limitation. 

6. On merits, it is not denied by the opposite party No. 3 that the complainant account is with the answering opposite party No. 3. Further, the payment which was made by the complainant has got no concern with the answering opposite party. Further, the answering opposite party also has got no concern with the issuing of any alleged policy and its payment. The policies have been sourced by individual agents and not by the ICICI Bank and bank is not involved in procuring the policy nor in its issuance. Rest of the averments of the complaint are denied by the opposite party No. 3 and prayed for the dismissal of the present complaint with costs.  

7. In support of his complaint, the complainant tendered into evidence affidavit of Pardeep Kumar complainant Ex.C-1, copies of premium receipts Ex.C-2 to Ex.C-9, copy of Aadhaar Card Ex.C-10 and closed the evidence. 

8. To rebut the case of the complainant, the opposite parties No. 1 and 2 tendered in evidence copy of proposal form dated 21.8.2006 Ex.OP-1.2/1, copy of Proposal Form dated 25.8.2006 Ex.OP-1.2/2, copy of e-receipt Ex.OP-1.2/3, copy of policy document (terms and conditions)  Ex.OP-1.2/4, affidavit of Charanjeet Kaur Ex.OP-1.2/5, copy of certificate under Section 65-B of Evidence Act, 1872 Ex.OP-1.2/6, copy of complaint Ex.OP-1.2/7, copy of affidavit of complainant Ex.OP-1.2/8 and closed the evidence. The opposite party No. 3 tendered in evidence affidavit of Sparsh Nagrik Ex.OP-3/1 and closed the evidence. 

9. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record. Written arguments also filed by the opposite parties No. 1 and 2. 

10. Before going into the merits of the present complaint firstly we decide the specific legal objection taken by the opposite parties that the present complaint is not within the period of limitation as per Consumer Protection Act (As amended up to date). 

11. As per Section 69 of The Consumer Protection Act 2019 the limitation period for filing a complaint before the District Commission is as under.-

“ 69. Limitation period

(1) The District Commission, the State Commission or the National Commission shall not admit a complaint unless it is filed within two years from the date on which the cause of action has arisen.

(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), a complaint may be entertained after the period specified in sub- section (1), if the complainant satisfies the District Commission, the State Commission or the National Commission, as the case may be, that he had sufficient cause for not filing the complaint within such period. 

Provided that no such complaint shall be entertained unless the District Commission or the State Commission or the National Commission, as the case may be, records its reasons for condoning such delay.”

12. In the present complaint it is admitted by the complainant that he paid the amount of Rs. 33,000/- to the opposite parties No. 1 and 2 in installments and last installment was paid on 12.7.2007 to make an investment with them for good return. But the complainant has taken a specific plea that he had no knowledge that his amount was deposited in an insurance policy and the opposite parties not supplied any document to him except these receipts Ex.C-2 to Ex.C-9. We have perused all these receipts Ex.C-2 to Ex.C-9 and in Ex.C-2 it is specifically mentioned that amount of Rs. 6,000/- received from Pardeep Kumar by way of cash deposit dated 21.8.2006 with ICICI Prudential Life Insurance Company Limited towards insurance premium deposit and same is also mentioned in Ex.C-3 to Ex.C-9 and in all these receipts duly proved on the file that these were issued against an insurance policy. Further, the proposal forms Ex.OP-1.2/1 and Ex.OP-1.2/2 are duly signed by the complainant. In view of these documents it is duly proved on the file that the complainant is in full knowledge that he paid the above mentioned amounts against the insurance policies.

13. Further, it is admitted by the complainant that after 12.7.2007 he did not pay any amount to the opposite parties. As per terms and conditions of the policy Ex.OP-1.2/4 the lock in period of the policy was for the first three years but complainant never applied for surrender of policy after three years or paid any premium after 12.7.2007. In these circumstances, in our view lastly the cause of action arose to the complainant was 12.7.2007 as after that date till November 2019 he never approached the opposite parties No. 1 and 2 and there is no document on the file that the complainant within this period ever written any request to the opposite parties for surrender of policy or for any other purpose. Further, the complainant not mentioned any reason in the present complaint for not filed the same within the limitation period as mentioned in Section 69 of The Consumer Protection Act 2019. So, in view of the Section 69 of the Consumer Protection the present complaint is not maintainable before this Commission for want of limitation. 

14. As the present complaint is not maintainable before this Commission so the application filed on 16.7.2020 by the opposite parties No. 1 and 2 is disposed of accordingly.  

15. As a result of our above discussion and as per Section 69 of The Consumer Protection Act 2019 the present complaint is dismissed being  not maintainable on account of barred by limitation. However, no order as to costs or compensation. Copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of costs. The file be consigned to the records after its due compliance. 

ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COMMISSION:

        25th Day of January 2021

 

 

            (Kuljit Singh)

            President

              

 

(Tejinder Singh Bhangu)

Member