FA  377of 2012   against CC 816/2010    on the file of the District Consumer Forum – I, Hyderabad.

Between :

01. The Managing Director,

ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd

ICICI Bank towers,

Mumbai – 400 051.

02. Branch Manager, ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Ltd

D. No. 6-3-352/1, Osman Plaza Road no.1

Banjara Hills, Hyderabad              

And

Krishna H.No. 25-40/9/1, East Malkajgiri, Hyderabad                                

Counsel for the Appellants            :           Mr. S.

Counsel for the Respondent         :           served.

Coram           ;          

                              Sri R.      

And

                                    Sri T. Ashok Kumar                ..        

Tuesday, the Second Day of April

Two Thousand Thirteen

          Oral Order       :   ( As per Sri T. Ashok Kumar ,

****

       1.        This is an appeal preferred by the opposite parties   as against the  orders dated 19.10.2011  in CC  816/2010 on the file of the District Consumer Forum I, Hyderabad  . For convenience sake, the parties as arrayed in the complaint are referred to as under :

2.            The brief facts of the complaint are   the complainant had applied for  ICICI Home Loan Shield Policy of the opposite parties  for 20 years for Rs.15 lakhs  in the month of September, 2005 and paid Rs.42,900/- towards premium but they did not issue the policy in spite of e-mails and personal visits and in spite of that they got issued a  fake policy of 5 years offering to refund the amount to the extent only Rs.8,151/- . He paid interest of more than Rs.16  which amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of Ops and thus he filed the complaint to direct the Ops to refund Rs.42,900/- together with interest at Rs.16,000/-, Rs.one lakh towards compensation and costs of Rs.40,000/-.

3.         The Ops filed counter while admitting that the complainant had taken ICICI Home Loan Shield policy on 19.08.2005 and paid Rs.42  but stated that  the period of the policy is only for five years. They stated that they have issued the certificate at the time of receipt of the premium enclosing the pamphlet which contain terms and conditions of the policy  in the month of May, 2009 complaining about the non-receipt of policy certificate, to the customer support, which, sent the policy bearing No. 4043/0000002/ICICI/0014759 for 5 years for the period from 05.09.2005  to 10.09.2010 and it was issued after taking into account the age, loan amount, loan tenure and the occupation of the complainant.  It is the bounden duty of the complainant to pay interest on the loan amount, Ops  cancelled the policy and refunded the amount of Rs.8,151/-  at the request of the complaint and that there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on their part and thus prayed to dismiss the complaint.

  4.          Both   filed  evidence affidavit reiterating their respective pleadings  and  Ex. A-1 to A-14  were marked on behalf of the complainant and Ex. B -1 & B2   were  marked for the OP.

  5.          Having heard both sides and considering the evidence on record, the District Forum allowed the complaint in part directing the Ops to pay Rs.42,900/- jointly and severally with interest at 9% PA from 19.08.2005 till realization and  Rs.2,000/- towards costs within 30 days.

6.            Feeling aggrieved with the said order the unsuccessful OPs  filed this appeal on several grounds and mainly contended that the District Forum failed to see  that the policy will be issued  for 5 years and that the OP rightly refunded the amount of Rs.8,151/- at the request of the complainant  only  as per the rules and that the District Forum also  failed to see the policy and its terms and conditions and  that the without considering that the complainant already  received Rs.8,151/- from the first appellant the District Forum erroneously  directed to pay Rs.42,900/- with interest  and that the order of the District Forum is against  the facts and law and  that there is no deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on their part and thus prayed to allow the appeal and set aside the impugned order.

7.            Despite many adjournments, there  no representation on both sides and hence the matter was reserved for orders and on the basis of the material available on record we are inclined to dispose of the same  on merits.

8.            Now the point for consideration is whether the order of the District Forum is sustainable ?

9.    The case of the  complainant  is that he had applied for ICICI Home Loan Shield policy  for 20 years from Op and paid Rs.42,900/- towards premium amount and that in spite of number of reminders through e mails OP did not issue the policy and that when he requested for  the cancellation of the policy they created a fake policy of 5 years policy with an offer to refund Rs.8,151/- after some deductions and that the said acts of OP amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice and hence the complaint for refund of Rs.42,900/- and other reliefs. the plea of the Ops is that the complainant had taken ICICI Home loan Shield policy OP.1 on 19.8.,2005 for duration of five years by paying Rs.42,900/- and that the complainant kept quiet for three and half years and suddenly complained that he did not receive the policy and thus requested the opposite parties to cancel the policy and refund the amount so paid as premium and that on the request of the complainant the policy was cancelled and Rs.8.151/- was refunded.  Nether of the parties filed copy of the policy and as seen from the grievance of the complainant is that he did not receive the policy we cannot expect filing of such copy of the policy by him. However, there was no problem for the Ops to file the office copy of the policy but since it was not filed adverse inference is drawn in   According to the complainant the tenure of the policy is twenty years whereas Ops contended that it is only five years. Unless policy copy is filed it not possible to resolve the said issue and in the said context also adverse inference is drawn against the Ops for not filing the copy of the policy.  The complainant did not dispute receipt of Rs.8 and  OP can deduct Rs.8,151/- from Rs.42,900/- and pay the balance amount to the complainant along with interest but in the result of the impugned order it is not so mentioned. Therefore, the impugned order is liable to be modified suitably by allowing the appeal in part.

10. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed modifying the order of the District Forum  directing the Ops 1 and 2 jointly and severally to pay Rs.34,749/-       ( Rs.42,900/-  minus Rs.8,151/- ) together with interest at the rate of 9% PA from 19.08.2005 till realization, so also, costs of Rs.2,000/- through out. Time for compliance one month. Remaining claim of the complainants stands dismissed.

                                                                                    MEMBER

                                                                                    MEMBER

                                                                                      02.04.2013.