STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, KURUKSHETRA
Date of Institution: 22.03.2018
Date of final hearing: 09.10.2023
Date of pronouncement: 21.11.2023
First Appeal No.359 of 2018
IN THE MATTER OF:-
Channo Devi aged 65 years, W/o Hari Singh S/o Baru Ram, R/o VPO Hathira, Near Govt. Primary School, Kurukshetra. ....Appellant
Versus
- Kotak Mahindra Old Mutual Life Insurance Limited, Registered Office, 4th Floor, Vinay Bhavya Complex, 159-A, CST Road, Kalina Santacruz (E) Mumbai through its authorized signatory.
- Vikas Sachdeva S/o Prem Nath, R/o House No.1520, Sector-7, Urban Estate, Kurukshetra. …..Respondents
CORAM: Mr. Naresh Katyal, Judicial Member
Argued by:- None for appellant.
Sh. Hitender Kansal, counsel for respondent No.1.
Presence of respondent No.2 already dispensed with.
ORDER
NARESH KATYAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER:
Delay of 41 days in filing of present appeal stands condoned for the reasons stated in application for condonation of delay.
2. Challenge in this appeal No.359 of 2018 has been invited by complainant-Channo Devi to the legality of order dated 10.01.2018 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-Kurukshetra (In short “District Consumer Commission”) in complaint case No.309 of 2016, vide which her complaint has been allowed.
3. As per complainant’s case: she got policy No.01607024 from OPs, for period of ten years on 19.06.2009 for annually installment of Rs.15,000/-. She paid Rs.15,000/- each on 28.05.2009, 29.06.2010; 20.06.2011, 03.12.2012 and 11.07.2013. In total, she paid Rs.75,000/- to OPs. At the time of issuing policy; OP No.2-agent assured that: complainant would get interest @ 8% p.a. on amount deposited. She received Rs.15,592/- from OP No.1 through cheque issued by OP No. 1. Thereafter, she contacted OPs, who told that: policy was closed by company. OPs have only refunded above amount and refused to refund balance amount, which as per plea, amounts to deficiency in OPs service. On these pleas; she filed complaint, to seek directions against OPs: to pay her Rs.59,408/- with 18% interest p.a. till payment; to pay her Rs.50,000/- as compensation for mental agony and physical harassment; to pay her Rs.11,000/- as litigation expenses.
4. OP No.1 raised contest and filed written version. In preliminary objections thereof, it is pleaded that: complainant does not disclose any cause of action. Complaint has been filed after gap of more than 6 years (filed in November, 2016) from issuance of policy which was issued in year 2009, and thus it is time-barred. It is pleaded that policy No. 01607024 was issued on 22.06.2009 with premium mode of Rs.15,000/- with annual payment frequency. Policy term was 10 years and sum assured was Rs.5.00 lacs. OP has received only five premiums including subscription premium under policy. Renewal premium was due on 19.06.2012 which complainant failed to pay and policy was foreclosed on 25.07.2012. Cheque dated 06.08.2012 for Rs.12,995.79 was sent to complainant being foreclosure amount. After policy was foreclosed, complainant approached OP for revival of policy vide letter dated 23.10.2012. As a goodwill gesture, OP revived the policy. Next renewal premium was due on 19.06.2013 which complainant paid. Next renewal premium was due on 19.06.2014 which complainant did not policy and policy had entered into Automatic Cover Maintenance Mode (ACM). It is pleaded that policy got foreclosed and amount of Rs.15,592.86 was credited to her via NEFT in her Account No. 3266001700037337 on 29.08.2016. OP has discharged itself from liability under policy. By denying other allegations; dismissal of complaint has been prayed.
5. OP No.2-agent did not appear before learned District Consumer Commission. Eventually, vide order dated 10.01.2017; OP No.2 was proceeded against ex-parte.
6. Complainant, as well as, OP No. 1/insurer have led their respective evidence, oral as well as documentary.
7. On subjectively analyzing the same; learned District Consumer Commission-Kurukshetra vide order dated 10.01.2018 allowed the complaint and directed OP No.1/insurer to pay Rs.59,408/- to complainant/appellant along with simple interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of filing of complaint (29.11.2016) till its payment. It is also mentioned that: order be complied within 60 days.
8. Feeling aggrieved, this appeal has been filed by complainant.
9. In this appeal, as it is so apparent from its record; nobody has appeared on behalf of appellant from 05.04.2022 onwards. Position in this regard was none better even on 09.10.2023, when learned counsel for respondent No. 1-insurer has addressed arguments.
10. In the memorandum of appeal so filed by appellant/complainant; it has been asserted that order dated 10.01.2018 passed by learned District Consumer Commission-Kurukshetra, be modified and Consumer’s Complaint be allowed, in totality. Appellant is entitled to claim whole amount deposited by her with interest @ 18% p.a. (as claimed in complaint), instead of refunding her amount of Rs.59,408/-with 6% interest from 29.11.2016 to 02.02.2018.
11. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 1-insurer has stated at bar on 09.10.2023 that: impugned order dated 10.01.2018 passed by learned District Consumer Commission-Kurukshetra has been complied with, in its later and spirit. Amount as claimed by complainant in her complaint has been paid to her with interest as awarded, before filing of this appeal by consumer/complainant.
12. On analyzing the grounds mentioned in memorandum of appeal, in the light of above submission of learned counsel for respondent No.1/insurer; this Commission is of firm opinion that impugned order dated 10.01.2018 does not warrant any modification. Reason is obvious. Appellant has claimed refund of Rs.59,408/- in her complaint. This amount has been refunded to her, in principal, through impugned order dated 10.01.2018. Though, appellant has claimed interest @18% on this amount in her complaint, yet her memorandum of appeal does not indicate any reasonable or plausible fundamental base to award her 18% interest as claimed. This Commission holds that interest @ 6% from the date of filing of complaint (29.11.2016) till realization, on Rs.59,408/-, so awarded by learned District Consumer Commission-Kurukshetra through its order dated 10.01.2018 merits credence. Accordingly, interest @ 6% p.a. as awarded to complainant/appellant vide order dated 10.01.2018 is maintained. No ground, worth acceptable at legal pedestal is visible to award any compensation to consumer/complainant, by allowing her prayer to that effect, so raised in complaint. In any case, award of interest @ 6% p.a. from 29.11.2016, on amount of Rs.59,408/- till its realization, is nothing, but in nature of compensation only.
13. Consequently, this Commission does not find any manifest error, legal or factual, or any legally acceptable platform to modify the impugned order dated 10.01.2018. Rightly, learned District Consumer Commission-Kurukshetra has held that complainant/appellant is entitled to interest @ 6% p.a. from date of filing of complaint, (29.11.2016) till realization on claimed amount of Rs.59,408/-. Impugned Order dated 10.01.2018 is the outcome of meticulous appreciation of facts and evidence, which is affirmed and maintained. Present appeal, being devoid of merits, is hereby dismissed.
14. Application(s) pending, if any stand disposed of in terms of the aforesaid judgment.
15. A copy of this judgment be provided to all the parties free of cost as mandated by the Consumer Protection Act, 1986/2019. The judgment be uploaded forthwith on the website of the Commission for the perusal of the parties.
16. File be consigned to record room.
Date of pronouncement: 21st November, 2023
Naresh Katyal
Judicial Member
Addl. Bench-II
