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.357 of 2018
IN THE MATTER OF:-
Hari Singh aged 70 years, 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 vide order dated 07.01.2019.
ORDER
NARESH KATYAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER:
Delay of 39 days in filing of this appeal stands condoned, for the reasons stated in application for condonation of delay.
2. Challenge in this Appeal No. 357 of 2018 has been invited by complainant-Hari Singh 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.310 of 2016, vide which his complaint has been allowed.
3. As per complainant’s case: he got policy No.02353179 from OPs, for period of ten years on 24.09.2011 for annually installment of Rs.16,610/-. He paid Rs.16,780/- on 10.08.2011; Rs.16,610/- on 23.10.2012 and Rs.16,440/- on 08.10.2013. In total, he paid Rs.49,830/- to OPs. He had earlier got policy bearing No.924162 on 06.08.2010 and paid Rs.15,000/- and it was converted in above policy. At the time of issuing policy; OP No.2-agent assured that: complainant would get interest @ 8% p.a. on amount deposited. He received Rs.20,832/- from OP No.1 and thereafter he 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; he has filed complaint, to seek directions against OPs: to pay him Rs.28,998/- with 18% interest p.a. till payment; to pay him Rs.50,000/- as compensation for mental agony and physical harassment; to pay him 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 has concealed/suppressed material facts. He himself had failed to pay renewal premiums on due date under the subject policy, to keep it in force and OP subsequently received request for surrender of policy on 26.07.2016. On basis of request so received, the subject policy was surrendered as per terms and conditions of policy and Rs.19,594.59 paisa was paid to complainant’s bank account No.01962010028740 via NEFT on 01.08.2010 in Oriental Bank of Commerce. Surrender value has been calculated as per terms and condition of policy. Thus, after making payment as per terms and conditions of policy; OP No.1 has discharged its liability and policy stood terminated. Complaint has been filed after gap of more than 6 years from issuance of policy which was issued in year 2011, and thus it is time barred. On merits, it is admitted that policy was issued on 24.09.2011, sum assured was Rs.1,27,000/-. Policy’s terms was 10 years and total premium paid was Rs.49,830/-. It is pleaded that: since complainant had paid premium for three years (for year 2011, 2012 and 2013) and failed to pay renewal premiums; his policy has entered into Automatic Non-forfeiture Mode. He was entitled to surrender the policy and submitted surrender form dated 26.07.2016 which was processed. As per clause 4 of policy document; Guaranteed Surrender Value, if paid would be 30% of all premiums paid, excluding first year’s premium, rider premiums and additional premiums, if any, less any benefit already paid under policy, which comes to Rs.9,966/- approximately. It is again reiterated that Rs.19,594.59/- was credited in complainant’s account on 01.08.2016. Inter-alia on these pleas; it is alleged that there is no deficiency in service on the part of OP No.1.
5. OP No.2-agent was proceeded ex-parte, vide order dated 10.01.2017.
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.28,998/- 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 him with interest @ 18% p.a. (as claimed in complaint), instead of refunding him amount of Rs.28,998/- 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 his complaint has been paid to him 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.28,998/- in his complaint. This amount has been refunded to him, in principal, through impugned order dated 10.01.2018. Though, appellant has claimed interest @18% on this amount in his complaint, yet his memorandum of appeal does not indicate any reasonable or plausible fundamental base to award him 18% interest as claimed. This Commission holds that interest @ 6% from the date of filing of complaint (29.11.2016) till realization, on Rs.28,998/-, 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 his 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.28,998/- 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.28,998/-. 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
