DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,<br /> BATHINDA (PUNJAB)<br /> <br /> CC. No. 250 of 10-09-2008<br /> Decided on : 26-05-2009 <br /> <br /> 1.Ranjit Singh aged about 64 years S/o Dalip Singh, R/o Gali No. 10, H. No. 21852, Power House Road, Bathinda.<br /> 2.Jasbir Kaur aged about 50 years wife of Ranjit Singh S/o Dalip Singh, R/o H. No. Gali No. 10, H. No. 21852, Power House Road, Bathinda.<br /> 3.Sukhpal Kaur aged bout 37 years D/o Ranjit Singh now wife of Balbir Singh S/o Gurjant Singh, R/o Balla Ram Nagar, Bathinda.<br /> 4.Davinderpal Singh aged about 29 years S/o Ranjit Singh, resident of Gali No. 10, H. No. 21852, Power House Road, Bathinda. <br /> .... Complainants<br /> Versus<br /> <br /> 1.Life Insurance Company, Bathinda through its Branch Manager.<br /> 2.The Branch Manager, State Bank of Patiala, MSC Branch, Near Bus Stand, Bathinda.<br /> ... Opposite parties<br /> <br /> Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection<br /> Act, 1986.<br /> <br /> QUORUM <br /> <br /> Sh. George, President<br /> Dr. Phulinder Preet, Member<br /> Sh. Amarjeet Paul, Member<br /> <br /> For the Complainant : Sh. G.S. Chugh, Advocate, counsel for the complainant<br /> For the Opposite parties : Sh. Inderjit Singh, Advocate. counsel for opposite party No. 1<br /> Sh. Raj Bhupinder Singh, Advocate, counsel for opposite party No. 2. <br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> SH. GEORGE, PRESIDENT<br /> <br /> 1. The present complaint is under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (here-in-after referred to as 'Act') against the opposite parties with the allegations that Insurance policy No. 161046846 dated 24-04-1997 for a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- was obtained by the complainant Sh. Ranjit Singh in the name of Sukhpal Kaur, complainant No. 3 from opposite party No. 1. According to the terms and conditions of the said policy, a sum of Rs. 40,000/- was required to be paid to the complainant after 10 years i.e. on 24-04-2007. The above said policy was pledged with opposite party No. 2 against the credit limit against Account No. 10006352974. The opposite party No. 1 was required to pay an amount of Rs. 40,000/- on the expiry of 10 years period i.e. on 24-04-2007, which was required to be transferred into the above referred account number with opposite party No. 2. Opposite party No. 1 has neither paid this amount on the date to the complainant nor the same was transferred and credited in the account of the complainant. The complainant approached opposite party No. 1 repeatedly on the dates i.e. 3rd May, 2007, 29th May, 2007, 12th July, 2007, 5th December, 2007 and 28th July, 2008 and requested to make payment of Rs. 40,000/- to complainant No. 3 or credit this amount in the A/c No. 10006352974 with opposite party No. 2. The opposite party No. 1 informed the complainant that as the policy is pledged with opposite party No. 2, they would credit the amount in question accordingly. The complainant visited opposite party No. 2 also on 2nd May, 2007, 23rd August, 2007, 21st November, 2007 and 6th August, 2008 and requested that the amount of Rs. 40,000/- be credited as the policy stands pledged with it as per the terms and conditions of the policy, but despite repeated reminders and requests made to both the opposite parties yielded no results and the complainant continued to suffer loss of interest on Rs. 40,000/- from the due date i.e. 24-04-2007 onwards. The complainant was forced to file the complaint and claim not only amount of Rs. 40,000/- but also amount of interest became due to him with effect from 24-04-2007 alongwith a reasonable amount of compensation for mental agony, unnecessary harassment, tension, inconvenience and economic loss he has undergone during the period. He has also claimed reasonable litigation expenses for forced litigation.<br /> 2. The opposite parties No. 1 & 2 filed separate replies raising preliminary objections ; that complaint is not maintainable in the present form; the complainant has no locus standi and cause of action; he has not come before this Forum with clean hands and is guilty of suppressing the reals fact. In fact, there is no deficiency in service and unfair trade practice and complaint is false, frivolous and vexatious and has been filed only to harass the opposite parties.<br /> On merits, allegations made by the complainant of his repeated requests for payment either in cash or for crediting the same in the Bank account maintained by opposite party No. 2, are not admitted. However, it has been pleaded that the complaint has already become infructuous as the Survival Benefits due has already been paid by opposite party No. 1 vide cheque No. 37159 on 8-10-2008 alongwith penal interest to the tune of Rs. 4656/- @8% P.A. vide cheque No. 39269 dated 26-11-2008 , drawn on AXIS Bank in the account of the complainant maintained with opposite party No. 2. <br /> 3. The parties led evidence to prove their respective assertions against each other.<br /> 4. The complainant No. 1 Ranjit Singh and complainant No. 3 Sukhpal Kaur filed their affidavits Ex.C-1 and Ex. C-3 and a copy of account statement Ex. C-2.<br /> 5. The opposite party No. 1 brought on record copies of letters 28-03-2009, 01-04-2007, 20-09-2007 and 25-05-2007 Ex. R-1 to Ex. R-4 respectively, photocopies of discharge receipt, proposal form and policy Ex. R-5 to Ex. R-7 respectively. The opposite party No. 2 has brought on record affidavit dated 13-02-2009 of Sh. I S Garg, Branch Manager Ex. R-8, copy of account statement Ex. R-9 and affidavit of Sh. J P Arya , Manager (Legal & HPF), Ex. R-10.<br /> 6. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the entire record of the case carefully.<br /> 7. From the perusal of pleadings of opposite No. 1, it appears that Survival Benefit due has already been paid by answering opposite party i.e. opposite party No. 1 vide cheque No. 37159 on 08-10-2008 and penal interest to the tune of Rs. 4656/- @ 8% P.A. vide cheque No. 39269 dated 26-11-2008. This fact is not denied by the learned counsel for the complainant during the course of arguments. The only question which remains for decision before this Forum as to whether the complainant No. 3 is entitled for any amount of compensation on account of mental tension, harassment, inconvenience and loss of interest she has suffered from due date of payment i.e. 24-04-2007 till this amount of Rs. 40,000/- alongwith interest was paid on 08-10-2008 and 26-11-2008 respectively. The complainant No. 1 in his affidavit Ex. C-1 has specifically pleaded that the amount fell due and opposite party No. 1 was liable to make the payment of Rs. 40,000/- as on 24-04-2007. This amount was required to be paid either in cash or liable to be credited into the Account No. 10006352974 with opposite party No. 2 and the complainant visited number of times i.e. on 03-05-2007, 29-05-2007, 12-07-2007, 05-12-2007 and 28-07-2008, the office of opposite party No. 1 and made requests either to pay Rs. 40,000/- to complainant No. 3 or the same be got credit against credit limit Account No. 10006352974 with opposite party No. 2, but his requests were not yielded any result. He also specifically deposed that he not only visited the office of opposite party No. 1, but also visited the office of opposite party No. 2 on several times i.e. on 02-05-2007, 23-08-2007, 21-11-2007 and 06-08-2008 and requested that the amount of Rs. 40,000/- be credit as the policy stands pledged with it and as per the terms and conditions of the policy as referred to above in respect of complainant No. 3, but his repeated reminders and requests made to both the opposite parties yielded no result. As per pleading of both the opposite parties, they accused each other for non-compliance. As per opposite party No. 1 after the Insurance policy was assigned to opposite party No. 2, assignee was requested to submit the requirements to enable opposite party No. 1 to make payment of Survival Benefits due on 24-04-2007 in favour of complainant No. 3. It has also pleaded that even letter dated 28-05-2007, 20-09-2007 and 28-03-2008 were issued in the name of the opposite party No. 2 for getting the requisite requirements completed i.e. for Policy Bond and Discharge Form, which were not fulfilled and due to this reason, Survival Benefits could not be paid by opposite party No. 1 in time whereas opposite party No. 2 have denied that they received letters dated 28-05-2007, 20-09-2007 and 28-03-2008 from opposite party No. 1 for getting the requisite requirements completed for the release of the amount in favour of complainant No 3. Rather it was pleaded by opposite party No. 2 in para No. 2 of its reply that opposite party No. 2 came to know about the said fact only when the complainant filed the present complaint meaning thereby that the opposite party No. 2 kept on sleeping and paid no heed even to the letter received from opposite party No. 1. In view of these circumstance, neither opposite party No. 1 nor opposite party No. 2 can plead that complainant was at fault for any reason as he continued to approach both the opposite parties continuously for his redressal but none of the opposite parties came to her rescue and she on account of inaction and due to deficiency in service on the part of the both the opposite parties continued to suffer from 24-04-2007 to 08-10-2008 and finally upto 26-11-2008 when she received the amount of Rs. 40,000/- alongwith penal interest from opposite party No. 1. <br /> 8. Under the facts, circumstances and evidence as has been discussed above, the complainant No. 3 has definitely undergone the mental tension harassment and inconvenience due to inaction on the part of both the opposite parties and ,therefore, she is entitled for reasonable and adequate damages from both the opposite parties which we proceed to assess in the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case to the tune of Rs. 5,000/- against each of the opposite parties. Inaction on the part of both the opposite parties, forced the complainant No. 3 to move this Forum and, therefore, she is entitled for reasonable and adequate litigation expenses which we proceed to assess in the facts and circumstances of the present case as Rs. 500/- against each of the opposite parties.<br /> 9. In view of the above discussion, the complaint is accepted against both the opposite parties. Each of the opposite party is directed to pay an amount of Rs. 5,000/- as compensation and Rs. 500/- as litigation expenses to Sukhpal Kaur, complainant No. 3, within the period of 45 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.<br /> 10. The copy of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of costs and the file be consigned to record.<br /> Pronounced :<br /> 26-05-2009 (George)<br /> President<br /> <br /> <br /> (Dr. Phulinder Preet)<br /> Member <br /> <br /> (Amarjeet Paul)<br /> Member <br />