BEFORE THE ADDITIONAL BENCH DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT MYSURU.

Consumer Complaint (C.C.)No. 1326/2016

Complaint filed on 12.07.2016

Date of Judgement.19.06.2017

PRESENT                                : 1. Shri Ramachandra  M.S.,  B.A., LL.B.,

                                                          PRESIDENT

                                       2. Shri  Thammanna,Y.S., B.Sc., LL.B., 

                                          MEMBER

Complainant/s               :                1.C.Renukambha W/o Srinivasaiah

                                                           Aged about 52,

 Door No. 1688, 2^nd cross,

 2^nd stage, 6^th main road,

Vijayanagar , Mysuru.

                                                         (Sri.P.S. Nagendra., Advocate )

V/s

Opponent        /s                     :       1. The Manager,

                                                          ICICI  Prudential Life Insurance

                                                          Company limited,

United No. 301, 3^rd floor,

Mysuru Trade Centre ,

KSRTC Bus Stand , opposite, 

Mysuru.

2. Executive Director,

No. 2015, ICICI Prudential Life

Towers, 1083, Appasaheb Marga,

Prabhadevi , Mumbai-400025.

(Sri. H.L. Padmanabha ., Advocate )

SHRI RAMACHANDRA . M.S.,

 PRESIDENT

JUDGEMENT

The complaint is filed u/s 12 CP Act seeking for the relief refund of balance deposited amount and such other reliefs.

2. The brief facts of the complaint is that the complainant has taken life insurance policy from the  opposite party  company for a period of 10 years, on annual instalment of Rs. 50,000/-. Further the complainant paid the 1^st instalment on 31.03.2011 and the last instalment was paid on 06.03.2015. Total amount of Rs. 2,50,000/- was paid and at the end of 5^th year and after the completion of 5 years the complainant withdrawn the policy and for that the opposite party have settled a sum of Rs. 2,78,000/- towards  the settlement of policy. For which the complaint has demanded for the balance payment of Rs. 72,000/- as agreed by opposite party company.

3. Further in spite of repeated request and notice the opposite party failed to pay back the balance amount. For which the complainant filed the complaint seeking for the relief to make the balance payment of Rs. 72,000/- along with other reliefs.

4. Notice to the opposite party duly served represented by counsel and filed version with contention that they admit the issue of policy to the complainant and also admits that on withdrawal of policy on 5^th year they have settled amount of Rs. 2,78,000/- as a final settlement. In respect of said policy. For that reason the complaint is not maintainable it is liability dismissed.

5. Further the opposite party has denied the claim of complainant and also contended that the complaint is not maintainable for the reason that it is a commercial transaction and the amount which was collected from the complainant was invested in the share market. Since the share transaction is a speculative transaction that does not come under the perview of consumer protection Act. Thereafter the opposite party took other defence in order to defend the claims of complainant. This inconsistent plea of opposite party cannot be accepted at any stretch of imagination finally the opposite party has denied all the allegation of complaint and also contends there is no deficiency in service on their part for that reason they pray for the dismissal of complaint.  

6. Both the complainant and opposite party filed chief examination affidavit and documents in support of their contention written argument filed and oral arguments, heard matter is reserved for orders.

7. The points that arise for our consideration are;-

1. Whether the complaint proves that there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite party by not settling the  balance claim amount and thereby proves that she entitle for relief sought?

2. What order?

8. Our answer to the above points is as follows;

Point No.1:   In the partly affirmative

Point No.2     : As per final order for the following;

REASONS

9. The complainant has established with relevant documents that she has taken insurance policy and totally premium amount of Rs. 2,50,000/- paid , and period of policy is 10 years. Further complainant terminated the policy on the completion of 5 years, by surrendering policy for which opposite party paid  surrender value of Rs. 2,78,000/- for that complainant raised objection and claimed balance amount of Rs. 72,000/- along with interest.

10.The opposite party company by denying the claims of complainant have contended several grounds in order to deny the lawful claim of complaint. Further opposite party in his defence has taken all possible grounds to defeat the lawful claim of complainant.

11.Thereafter at one stretch opposite party contends that its a commercial transaction for that reason  complainant is not a consumer and another the premium payment amount is invested to share market for that reason it is speculative transaction does not come under the preview of C.P. Act and also took other defence. In order to defend the claims this inconsistent plea of opposite party cannot be accepted, opposite party has miserable failed to produce any documents in support of their defence. When such being the case the denial of  complainant claim, is a mere denial of opposite party, in order to escape any liability to be fixed by the orders of fora. It can only be viewed that the opposite party has put his best efforts to defeat the lawful claims of complainant.

12. Thereafter on perusal of terms and conditions of policy it is evident that opposite party company has under taken to pay Rs. 3,50,000/- on the completion of 5^th year from the date of taking policy. When the complainant availed insurance policy with opposite party, both party have entered in to a contract, they are abide by the terms and conditions of policy, if either party breaches any of the conditions they are bound to compensate the other party. Here the opposite party has violated the terms and conditions of policy for which they are liable to pay the lawful dues and claims of complainant.

13. For the above reasons by looking at the facts and documents produced by complainant has proved her case beyond reasonable doubt and also complainant proved that there is deficiency  in service on the part of opposite party.

14. According to this forum we answered Point no.1 in the partly affirmative and pass the following:

15. Point no.2:- For the above discussion we here by proceed to pass the following:

ORDER

1. The complaint is hereby allowed in part.
2. The opposite party is directed to pay a sum of Rs. 72,000/- to the complainant within 60 days of this orders. with interest at the rate 15% p.a from the date 18.05.2016 till payment.
3. The opposite party is directed to pay Rs.3,000/-towards deficiency in service and Rs. 5,000/- towards cost of proceedings to the complainant within 60 days of this orders.
4. In default to comply the above order opposite party shall pay interest on the said amount of 8,000/- at the rate of 10% p.a. from the date of order till payment made.

5.  In case of default to comply this order, the opposite party shall   undergo imprisonment and also liable for fine under section 27 of

     the CP Act, 1986.

6. Give the copies of this order to the parties, as per Rules.

(Dictated to the stenographer transcribed, typed by her, transcript corrected by us and then pronounced in open court on the 19^th   June  2017)  

Shri Thammanna Y.S.,                                 Shri Ramachandra M.S.,    

          Member.                                                             President.