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.358 of 2018
IN THE MATTER OF:-
Sewapati aged 65 years, W/o Pala 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.358 of 2018 has been invited by complainant-Sewapati 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.22 of 2017, vide which her complaint has been allowed.
3. As per complainant’s case: she got policy No.01612006 from OPs, for period of ten years on 05.08.2009 for annually installment of Rs.15,000/-. She paid Rs.15,000/- each on 06.08.2010; 05.08.2011, 23.10.2012 and 31.10.2013. In total, she paid Rs.60,000/- 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.25013.33 from OP No.1 through cheque issued by OP No. 1. Thereafter, she contacted OPs, who told that: policy was closed by company. OP has 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.34,986.67 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. OP has received payment till year 2013, thereafter complainant failed to pay due renewal premiums and policy has entered into Automatic Cover Maintenance Mode (ACM) and as per terms and conditions of policy; it was surrendered on request of complainant. Surrender request dated 10.11.2016 was processed; amount of Rs.25,013.33 has been paid to her via NEFT in Punjab National Bank Account No. 80980100069809 on 16.11.2016. Surrender value has been calculated as per terms and condition of policy. It is pleaded that Policy No. 01612006 was issued on 05.08.2009; premium amount was Rs.15,000/- with annual payment frequency. Policy term was 20 years and sum assured was Rs.5.00 lacs. Total premium paid is Rs.75,000/- and not Rs.60,000/- (as pleaded in complaint). She received all benefits for which she was entitled to, as per terms and conditions of policy and OP stood discharged from its liability. Complaint has been filed after gap of more than 7 years from issuance of policy which was issued in year 2009, and thus it is time-barred. By denying other allegations; dismissal of complaint has been prayed.
5. OP No.2-agent also filed defence by pleading that: he is only agent of OP No. 1 and has no role in issuing the policy in question. Matter is between complainant and OP No.1. Subsequently, vide order dated 17.07.2017 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.34,986.67 to complainant/appellant along with simple interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of filing of complaint (30.01.2017) 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.34,986.67 with 6% interest from 30.01.2017 to 20.02.2018.
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. 34,986.67 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 (30.01.2017) till realization, on Rs.34,986.67, 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 30.01.2017, on amount of Rs. 34,986.67 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, (30.01.2017) till realization on claimed amount of Rs. 34,986.67. 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
