Kerala

StateCommission

A/14/6

THE MANAGER, TATA AIG INSURANCE CO LTD - Complainant(s)

Versus

JOHNSON. K.P - Opp.Party(s)

SAJI ISSAC K.J

30 Jan 2015

ORDER

KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL

COMMISSION VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

 

APPEAL NO.06/2014

JUDGMENT DATED 30/01/2015

 (Appeal filed against the order in C.C No.503/2011 on the file of CDRF, Thrissur dated, 17/11/2012)

 

PRESENT:

 

SMT. A. RADHA                             :         MEMBER

SHRI. K. CHANDRADAS NADAR :        JUDICIAL MEMBER

 

APPELLANTS:

 

1. The Manager, TATA AIG Life Insurance Co. Ltd.,

2^nd Floor, Trade Centre, Kuruppam Road, Thrissur.

 

1. Tata AIG Life Insurance Co. Ltd., Regd. &

Corporate Office, 6^th Floor, Peninsula

Corporate Park, Ganapathrao Kadam Marg,

Off Senapathi Bapat Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai.

 

               (By Adv:  Saji Isaac.K.J)                   

 

                   Vs

 

RESPONDENT:

 

          Johnson.K.P., Kidngan House, Manaloor, Thrissur.

 

(By Adv:  M/s. S.S. Kalkura Associates)                    

JUDGMENT

 

SMT. A. RADHA  :  MEMBER

 

The opposite parties preferred this appeal against the impugned order passed by the CDRF, Thrissur in C.C.No.503/2011 wherein the complaint has been allowed against the opposite parties.

         

2.  The brief facts of case of the complainant are that the complainant had taken an Insurance Policy of the opposite party and paid the premium amount of Rs.9,645/-.  It is informed by the agent of the opposite party that the policy assured great face value increase whereas to the surprise of the complainant the value decreased considerably.  By that time the complainant remitted 5 instalments. Due to the heavy loss sustained by the complainant, a notice was issued on 16/05/2011 to return the paid amount against which no response received from the part of the opposite party.  Hence filed the complaint for Rs.48,225/- with 12% interest and also for Rs.10,000/- as compensation for the mental agony.

          3.  Though notice was served on the opposite party no version was filed and no representation.  Hence the Forum Below passed an exparte order on the basis of the documents produced by the complainant and allowed the complaint.

          4.  When this appeal came up for hearing it is submitted by the counsel for the appellant that though the opposite parties had entered appearance through a counsel the then counsel did not communicate with the opposite parties.  The Officer of the opposite party in-charge of the Legal Department also had left the company, and no version could be filed nor any evidence adduced by the opposite parties.  It is

 

also submitted that the opposite parties have valid contentions.      The policy taken by the complainant was unit-linked insurance policy and it is a speculative investment and the speculative game does not come under the Consumer Protection Act.  More over, the complainant is bound by the terms and conditions of the policy which was not considered by the Forum Below and prayed for a remand in order to file version and an opportunity is to be given to adduce evidence in support of their case.

          5.  On behalf of the respondent/complainant the counsel argued that the Tata Insurance Policy was issued to the complainant assuring great face value.  From 2005 onwards the complainant already remitted 5 instalments.  Though notice was served on the opposite party they remained exparte in order to defeat the complainant’s arguments.  The complainant already produced the documents and the Forum Below ordered only the remitted amount with cost of Rs.500/- only.  The counsel also prayed for upholding the order of the Forum Below.

          6.  Admittedly a policy was issued by the opposite parties which is having its own terms and conditions and are binding upon both parties.   It is true that the opposite parties were exparte before the Forum Below.  We find that the opposite parties are to be given

 

opportunity and the reason stated by the opposite party is found to be genuine.  We are of the considered view that the opposite parties are to be given an opportunity to file version and contest the case before the Forum Below.

          In the result, appeal is allowed setting aside the order passed by the Forum Below and we remand the case.  The Forum Below is directed to give an opportunity to file version to the opposite parties and contest their case.

          The parties are directed to appear on 09/03/2015 before the Forum Below.

The office is directed to send a copy of this order to the Forum Below along with LCR.

 

 

1. RADHA       :       MEMBER

 

K. CHANDRADAS NADAR       :        JUDICIAL MEMBER

 

 

 

Sa.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

KERALA STATE CONSUMER

                                                                  DISPUTES REDRESSAL

                                                           COMMISSION

THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

APPEAL NO.06/2014

JUDGMENT DATED 30/01/2015

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Sa.