Haryana

Kurukshetra

310/2016

Hari Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Kotak Mohindra bank - Opp.Party(s)

M.K.Sharma

10 Jan 2018

ORDER

BEFORE THE  DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPTUES REDRESSAL FORUM, KURUKSHETRA.

 

Complaint no.310/16.

              Date of instt. 29.11.16. 

      Date of Decision: 10.1.2018.

 

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. Karan 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 Hari Singh, 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.02353179 from Ops for a period of ten years under plan on 24.9.2011 for annually installment of Rs.16,610/- and paid a sum of Rs.16,780/- on 10.8.2011, Rs.16,610/- on 23.10.2012, Rs.16,440/- on 8.10.2013, so the complainant has paid a total sum of Rs.49,830/- to the Ops The complainant had earlier got the policy bearing No.924162 on 6.8.2010 and paid a sum of Rs.15,000/- and the same was converted in the above said policy. 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.20,832/- paisa 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.28,998/- along with 18% interest, to pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation for mental agony and physical harassment and Rs.11,000/- as litigation expenses.

3.                Upon notice 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 himself had failed to pay the renewal premiums on due date under the subject policy to keep the same in force and the answering OP had subsequently received request for surrender of the policy on 26.7.2016. Accordingly on the basis of request received, the subject policy was surrendered as per terms and conditions of the policy and Rs.19,594.59 paisa was paid to the complainant’s bank account bearing No.01962010028740 via NEFT on 1.8.2010 in the Oriental Bank of Commerce. Thus after making the payment as per the terms and conditions of the policy, the answering OP has discharged its liability under the subject contract and thus the policy stands terminated. 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 his own affidavit as Ex.C1, photo stat copy terms and conditions as Ex.C2, photo stat copy of premium receipts as Ex.C3 to C6, photo stat copy of pass book as Ex.C7, photo stat copy of legal notice as Ex.C8, postal receipt as Ex.C9, acknowledgement as Ex.C19, registered envelop Ex.C11 and photo stat copy of letter dated 23^rd September, 2016 as Ex.C12 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 R7 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 annually installment of Rs.16,610/- and paid a sum of Rs.16,780/- on 10.8.2011, Rs.16,610/- on 23.10.2012, Rs.16,440/- on 8.10.2013, so the complainant has paid a total sum of Rs.49,830/- to the Ops. It is also undisputed that the complainant had earlier got the policy bearing No.924162 on 6.8.2010 and paid a sum of Rs.15,000/- and the same was converted in the above said policy.  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.20,832/-  and have withheld the amount of Rs.28,998/- 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.28,998/-. 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.28,998/- 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