Haryana

Kurukshetra

309/2016

Channo Devi - Complainant(s)

Versus

Kotak Mahindra - Opp.Party(s)

M.K.Sharma

10 Jan 2018

ORDER

BEFORE THE  DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPTUES REDRESSAL FORUM, KURUKSHETRA.

 

Complaint no.309/16.

              Date of instt. 29.11.16. 

      Date of Decision: 10.1.2018.

 

Channo Devi wife of Hari Singh son of Biru Ram, resident of      VPO Hathira, Near Govt. Primary School, Kurukshetra.

                                                ……….Complainant.      

                        Vs.

1. Kotak Mahindra Old Mutual Life Insurance Limited Registered Office 4^th Floor, Vinay Bhavya Complex, 159-A. CST Road, Kalina Santacruz (E) Mumbai through its authorized signatory.
2. Vikas Sachdeva son of Prem Nath, resident of House No.1520, Sector-7, Urban Estate, Kurukshetra.

 

..………Opposite parties.

 

 Complaint under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act.                  

 

 

Before                Sh. G.C. Garg, President.    

                         Dr. Jawahar Lal Gupta, Member

        Smt. Viraj Pahil, Member

 

Present :            Sh. M.K.Sharma, Adv. for complainant.  

                        Sh. Karn Tanwar, Adv. for Op No.1

        OP  No.2 ex parte.

 

ORDER

                  

                    This is a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 moved by complainant Channo Devi, against Kotak Mahindra Old Mutual Life Insurance Company Limited & another, the opposite parties.

2.             It is stated in the complaint that the complainant got a policy bearing No.01607024 from Ops for a period of ten years under plan on 19.6.2009 for annually installment of Rs.15,000/- and paid a sum of Rs.15,000/- each on 28.5.2009, 29.6.2010, 20.6.2011, 3.12.202 and 11.7.2013, so the complainant has paid a total sum of Rs.75,000/- to the Ops. At the time of issuing the policy, OP No.2 assured that complainant would get interest @ 8% per annum on the amount deposited by him. The complainant has received an amount of Rs.15,992/- from Op No.1 and thereafter the complainant contacted the Ops and the Ops told that the policy was closed by the company and the Ops have only refunded the above said amount and refused to refund the balance amount. So, it amounts to deficiency in service on the part of Ops. Hence, the present complaint with the prayer to direct the Ops to pay the amount of Rs.59,408/- along with 18% interest, to pay Rs.30,000/- as compensation for mental agony and physical harassment and Rs.11,000/- as litigation expenses.

3.            Op No.1 appeared through Shri Karan Tanwar, Advocate, and contested the complaint by filing written statement taking preliminary objections that the complainant has concealed and suppressed the material facts of the case; that the complainant had failed to pay the renewal premium due on 19.6.2012, however he failed to pay the same and the policy had entered in to Automatic Cover Maintenance Mode. Subsequently as the fund value in the subject policy got depleted and the policy stood foreclosed as on25.7.2012. A cheque bearing No.399269 dated 6.8.2012 for the amount of Rs.12,995.79 paid was sent to the complainant being the foreclosure amount and was paid as per the terms and conditions of the policy; that the answering OP received a letter dated 23.10.2012 requesting to revive the subject policy. Despite the policy was foreclosed, the answering OP had considered the complainant’s request to revive the policy, considering it as an exception and as a gesture of goodwill the same was communicated vide letter dated 20.12.2012 and was also informed that her next renewal premium was due on 19.6.2013. Again the complainant failed to pay the premium due on 19.6.2014 for which a renewal premium payment notice dated 21.5.2014 was sent to the complainant but she failed to pay the same.. However, the policy was terminated on 22.9.2015 as the fund value of the policy reached one annualized premium and a force-closure payout was made vide a cheque bearing No.642305 dated 23.9.2015 for an amount of Rs.15,000/-. However, the same was not encashed and hence the complainant submitted re-issue payment form dated 17.8.2016 and as per his request a payout of Rs.15,592.86 paisa which includes the interest of Rs.592.86 paisa on Rs.15,000/- was not encashed earlier and was paid via NEFT in Punjab National Bank account no.3266001700037337 as on 29.6.2016. Hence, in view of the facts and circumstances mentioned above, there is no deficiency in service on the part of answering Op and as such, the complaint of the complainant is liable to be dismissed. On merits, the contents of the complaint were denied to be wrong. Preliminary objections were reiterated. Prayer for dismissal of the complaint was made.

4.            OP No.2 failed to come present and as such, he was proceeded ex parte vide order dated 10.1.2017.

5.            The complainant proved on record her own affidavit as Ex.C1, photo stat copy letter dated 22.6.2009 as Ex.C2, photo stat copies of others letters Ex.C3 to C7, photo stat copy of saving bank account note book as Ex.C8, photo stat copy of legal notice as Ex.C9, postal receipt as Ex.C10, acknowledgment as Ex.C11, registered envelop as Ex.C12, letter dated 23^rd September, 2016 as Ex.C13 and thereafter closed the evidence. On the other hand, OP No.1 tendered in to evidence affidavit of Shakil Ahmad, Chief Manager as Ex.RW1/A and documents Annexure R1 to R4 and thereafter closed the evidence.

6.             We have heard the ld. counsel for the parties and perused the case file carefully.

7.            It is undisputed that the complainant had deposited five installment of Rs.15,000/- and paid a sum of Rs.15,000/- each on 28.5.2009, 29.6.2010, 20.6.2011, 3.12.202 and 11.7.2013, so the complainant has paid a total sum of Rs.75,000/- to the Ops..  The counsel for the complainant argued that at the time of issuing the policy, OP No.2 assured that complainant would get interest @ 18% per annum on the amount deposited by her but the Ops have refunded only a sum of Rs.15,922/- and have withheld the amount of Rs.59,408/- on wrong and false grounds, so she is entitled the said amount from the Ops along with interest. The Ops have failed to disclose any sufficient reason as to why they have retained the amount of Rs.59,408/-. So, the complainant is entitled to get refunded the above said amount from the Ops along with interest.

8.             In view of our above said discussion, the complaint of the complainant is allowed and the OP No.1 is directed to pay Rs.59,408/- to the complainant along with simple interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of complaint which is 29.11.2016 till its payment. However, no liability is fastened upon OP No.2 being the agent of the company. The order; be complied within a period of 60 days, failing which penal action under Section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 would be initiated against the opposite party No.1.  File be consigned to record after due compliance.  Copy of this order; be communicated to the parties.  

 

 

 Announced:   

Dt. 10.1.2018.                                         (G.C.Garg)

                                                            President

                                                       District Consumer Disputes                                                             Redressal Forum, Kurukshetra

 

 

(Dr. Jawahar Lal Gupta)        (Viraj Pahil)                      

   Member                             Member