DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, MANSA. Complaint No.174/23.10.2008 Decided on : 13.03.2009 Baljinder Kaur W/o Sh.P.S.Naffra, resident of Water Works Road, Mansa presently residing at House No.477-478, Sector 9, Urban Estate, Ambala City, Haryana. ..... Complainant. VERSUS Life Insurance Corporation of India, Branch office Naraini Building, Opposite State Bank of India, Mansa ..... Opposite Party. Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. ..... Present: Sh.S.K.Mehta, Advocate, counsel for the complainant. Sh.S.P.Gupta, Advocate, counsel for the opposite party. Quorum: Sh.P.S.Dhanoa, President. Sh.Sarat Chander, Member. Smt.Neena Rani Gupta, Member. ORDER:- Sh.P.S.Dhanoa, President. Mrs.Baljinder Kaur wife of Sh.P.S.Naffra, a native of Mansa, presently residing at Ambala, in the State of Haryana, has filed the instant complaint, under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short called the 'Act'), against Life Insurance Corporation of India, Mansa for payment of interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum; sum of Rs.12,948/- for the period 1.5.2000 to June, 2008 and costs in the sum of Rs.5000/- for filing the complaint, along with compensation and pendent elite and future interest. Contd........2 : 2 : 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case, as projected, in the complaint, are that the complainant secured insurance policy No.160674925 on her life in the sum of Rs.50,000/- under Table and Term N (14-5) for the period 28.4.1996 to 27.4.2001. As per terms and conditions of the policy, the complainant got it discounted on 1.5.2000, but she was not granted bonus by the opposite party. The complainant filed a complaint before this Forum against the opposite party which was accepted by this Forum. In compliance to the said order, the opposite party paid her bonus in the sum of Rs.13,348/- and costs awarded in the sum of Rs.2000/-, but no interest has been paid with effect from 1.5.2000 till the date of payment of bonus. The opposite party was required to pay a sum of Rs.13348/- on 1.5.2000 but said amount has been paid in the month of June, 2008 in terms of the order passed by this Forum accepting her complaint. The opposite party has retained the amount for a period of more than 8 years without any reason, as such, complainant is entitled to payment of interest on account of delay in making the payment with effect from 1.5.2000 till actual date of payment along with interest and costs, as stated above. Hence this complaint. 3. On being put to notice, the opposite party filed written version resisting the claim, by taking preliminary objections; that no cause of action has accrued in favour of the complainant to file the complaint and the opposite party has already paid interest, in the sum of Rs.8569/- at the rate of 8 percent on the amount of Rs.13348/- as per the rules, on the subject and complainant is not entitled to payment of interest at the rate of 12 percent per annum. On merits, it is admitted that insurance policy No. 160674925 was secured by the complainant from the opposite party on 28.4.1996 for a period of 5 years which was to mature on 27.4.2001. Since the policy was got discounted by the complainant on 3.5.2000, after a period of 4 years, so she was not entitled to payment of any bonus. It is submitted that the complaint filed by the complainant was dismissed by Contd........3 : 3 : this Forum, but in appeal, the Hon'ble Punjab State Commission, took the view that circular dated 25.11.1997 providing that bonus is payable only if the amount of policy is paid after expiry period of maturity was not brought to the notice of the policy holder. It is contended that in terms of the verdict delivered in the appeal filed by the complainant, she has been paid a sum of Rs.15348/- vide cheque No.032080 dated 10.4.2008 and this amount includes the amount of bonus and costs (i.e. Rs.13348/- as bonus and Rs.2000/- as costs). It is further submitted that the opposite party has paid interest in the sum of Rs.8569/- on 28.11.2008 at the rate of 8 percent, as per rules on account of delay in payment of the claim as a special case, although no such direction, has been given in the appeal preferred by the complainant by the Hon'ble State Commission. Rest of the averments made in the complaint have been denied and a prayer has been made for dismissal of the complaint with costs. 4. On being called upon by this Forum, to do so, the learned counsel for the complainant tendered her affidavit, Exhibit C-1, and copies of documents Ext.C-2 and C-3 including the order passed in appeal by the Hon'ble State Commission before her counsel closed evidence. On the other hand, learned counsel for the opposite party made a statement that he do not want to lead any evidence on his behalf. 5. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the oral and documentary evidence, adduced on record, by the complainant alone. 6. At the outset, Sh.S.K.Mehta, Advocate, learned counsel for the complainant has submitted that opposite party is charging interest from the general public at the rate of 12 percent per annum, as such, it is liable to pay interest at the same rate to the complainant from the date she got her policy discounted till payment of amount of bonus has been made to her in terms of order passed in appeal by the Hon'ble State Commission. 7. On the other hand, Learned counsel for the opposite party Sh. Contd........4 : 4 : S.P.Gupta, Advocate has argued that no interest has been awarded by the Hon'ble State Commission in appeal, although she has made a specific request for award of interest at the rate of 24 percent per annum in previous complaint, as such, she cannot agitate the matter again and present complaint is not maintainable. 8. We find merit in the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the opposite party because, admittedly, earlier complaint filed by the complainant for payment of bonus under the insurance policy issued by the opposite party was dismissed vide order dated 23.5.2001 by this Forum. Aggrieved by the said order dismissing her complaint, the complainant preferred appeal No.372 of 2007 which was accepted by the Hon'ble State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission, Punjab, Chandigarh vide order dated 5.11.2007 setting aside the order passed by this Forum and directing the opposite party to make payment of the amount of bonus declared vide circular No.PHS/28 dated 06.07.1986 and to pay her costs in the sum of Rs.2000/-. In the above order, neither any observation has been made about the prayer of the complainant about payment of interest, nor any such relief has been granted to her. Even the complainant has not mentioned in her complaint as to if in the earlier complaint she had made any prayer for payment of interest. In order to adjudicate the controversy in just and proper manner, file of previous complaint No.1340 of dated 11.7.2000 was requisitioned, by this Forum from the record room. The perusal of the same goes to show that the complainant has sought payment of interest, at the rate of 24 percent per annum,with effect from 3.5.2000 i.e. the date she got her policy discounted till date of payment of bonus. However, her complaint was dismissed and in appeal no relief has been granted to her against the opposite party to pay her interest. Therefore, the said relief, is deemed to have been denied, to her by the Hon'ble State Commission in appeal, preferred by her against the order passed ,by this Forum. Since the order of the Hon'ble Contd........5 : 5 : State Commission has become final and binding upon the parties, therefore, complainant cannot re-open the controversy again and in our opinion present complaint for the same relief is, not maintainable. Moreover, there is no evidence except the affidavit of the complainant, which is self serving document, about the rate of interest, given to the general public. As per plea of the opposite party, they have already made the payment of interest themselves as per rules on the subject, on the amount of bonus. The complainant cannot seek interest against the rules on the subject. Therefore, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. 9. In the light of our above discussion, we have come to the conclusion that the complaint filed by the complainant is liable to fail. Resultantly, we dismiss the complaint leaving the parties to bear their own costs. 10. The copies of the order be supplied, to the parties, free of costs, as permissible, under the rules. File be indexed and consigned to record. Pronounced: 13.03.2009 Neena Rani Gupta, Sarat Chander, P.S.Dhanoa, Member. Member. President.
