Complainant Sharanjit Kaur through the present complaint filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short, ‘the Act’) has prayed that the necessary directions may kindly be issued to the opposite party no.1 to take necessary action and to make payment of the amount in question along with 18% P.A. interest from the date of due till actual realization. She has claimed Rs.50,000/- as compensation for the mental agony, physical harassment, financial loss and also for deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. Complainant has also claimed Rs.5000/- as litigation expenses all in the interest of justice.
2. The case of the complainant in brief is that complainant had obtained a Life Insurance Policy from the opposite party no.1 bearing Policy No.473042346 but due to unavoidable circumstances she could not continue the same so she surrendered the policy with opposite party no.1 and requested for its premature encashment which was accepted by the opposite party no.1 and asked the complainant to supply her bank account number so that amount in question be transferred through online system and the complainant supplied her A/c No.910010038408154 which she maintained with opposite party no.2. It was pleaded that complainant was in dire need of money so she approached the opposite party no.1 time and again and requested them for payment of amount in question but the same had not credited in her account by opposite party no.2. Complainant also approached the opposite party no.1 number of times and requested them to do the needful as the amount in question had not been transferred in her account but the opposite party no.1 putting off the mater with one pretext or the other. It was further pleaded that after thorough inquiry it had transpired that opposite party no.1 made the payment of Rs.33,552/- but instead of depositing the same in the account of the complainant, opposite party no.1 deposited the said amount in the account No.913010017493385 of the opposite party no.3 who was also maintaining her account with opposite party no.2 i.e. Axis Bank. It was next pleaded that complainant also approached the opposite party no.3 and requested her to withdraw the amount in question which is wrongly deposited in her account by the opposite party no.1 and to pay the same to the complainant but the opposite party no.3 refused to admit the legal and genuine claim of the complainant. It was pleaded that complainant had suffered physically, mentally as well as financially for no fault on her part and it is a deficiency gross negligence in service on the part of the opposite party no.1 who had deposited the amount of the complainant into the account of opposite party no.3, hence this complaint.
3. Notice of the complaint was served upon the opposite parties who appeared through their counsels and filed their separate written reply. Opposite party no.1 filed its written reply by taking the preliminary objections that the present complaint is not maintainable as the amount of Rs.33,352/- under Insurance Policy No.473042346 against surrender value claimed by the complainant had rightly been credited in the account of the complainant provided by her. Complaint is time barred as the same had been filed after two years from the date of payment. When complainant had come to know that the amount of claim Rs.33,352/- had not been credited in her account, she could have brought to the notice of opposite party no.1 as well as in the notice of opposite party no.2 for further clarification but the same had not been done by her. Opposite party no.1 had no knowledge about the wrong payment. On merits, it was admitted that complainant had obtained the life insurance policy bearing No.473042346 in her name. It was admitted that policy in question was surrendered by the complainant and the amount of Rs.33,352/- was transferred to the account of the complainant provided by her which is maintained with opposite party no.2. It was stated that opposite party no.1 had no knowledge about the non-payment to the complainant by the bank i.e. opposite party no.2. It was stated that complainant never brought to the notice of opposite party no.1 about her wrong credit of amount. It was further stated that the amount in question was transferred to the Axis Bank i.e. opposite party no.2 as per NEFT provided by the complainant. If complainant brought to the notice of the opposite party no.1 regarding the wrong credit of amount then payment could have been stopped timely before credited in the account of opposite party no.3. It was also stated that if complainant had come to know that the amount in question had wrongly been credited in the account of opposite party no.3 who is also maintaining her account in the same bank (opposite party no.2), then she could have brought to the knowledge of the opposite party no.1 as well as opposite party no.2 before withdrawing the amount by the opposite party no.3. It was next stated that there is no fault of opposite party no.1 as the amount had been credited as per the NEFT provided by the complainant. It was pertinent to mention here that Manjit Kaur wife of Charanjit Singh was the agent in both the policies surrendered by the complainant as well as opposite party no.3. All other averments made in the compliant have been denied and lastly the complaint has been prayed to be dismissed with costs.
- Opposite party no.2 filed its written reply by taking the preliminary objections that the complaint is not maintainable against the answering opposite party as the complainant is not the consumer of the answering opposite party. Opposite party is neither proper nor necessary party in the present complaint therefore the complaint is liable to be rejected against the answering opposite party as no cause of action has accrued to the complainant to the answering opposite party. On merits, it was admitted that complainant was having saving account with the answering opposite party. It was stated that the amount alleged by the complainant had not been credited in her account by the opposite party no.1. In reply to remaining para of the complaint it was stated that the same are related to opposite party no.1 and lastly the complaint has been prayed to be dismissed with costs.
- Opposite party no.3 filed its written reply by taking the preliminary objections that complaint is not maintainable in the present form as the complainant is not a consumer of the opposite party. No cause of action has accrued to the complainant against the opposite party for filing the present complaint. Complainant had filed the false complaint by concocting a false story and dragged the opposite party in false litigation and as such complainant is liable to be burdened with special costs. On merit, it was stated that Sh.Charanjit Singh Power of Attorney of the complainant approached the answering opposite party and told her that if she will deposit Rs.4,50,000/- then she will get Rs.9,00,000/- after four years and as such opposite party no.3 had paid Rs.4,50,000/- to him in the year 2008 but opposite party no.3 had got only Rs.90,000/- and Rs.33,552/- in return of her above mentioned amount of Rs.4,50,000/- as the power of attorney of the complainant had deposited the amount in question in shape of some other scheme. It was further stated that amount in question pertains to the opposite party no.3 and in no way relates to the complainant and the same had rightly been deposited in the account of answering opposite party which she is maintained with the opposite party no.2. All other averments made in the complaint have been denied and lastly the complaint has been prayed to be dismissed with costs.
- Sh.Charanjit Singh Power of Attorney of the complainant had tendered into evidence his own affidavit Ex.C1 along with documents Ex.C2 to Ex.C4 and closed the evidence on behalf of complainant.
- Counsel for the opposite party no.1 had tendered into evidence affidavit of Sh.Yogender Singh Sisodia Manager Legal Ex.OP-1/1 along with documents Ex.OP-1/2 and Ex.OP-1/3 and closed the evidence on behalf of opposite party no.1.
- Sh.Manpreet Singh Branch Head had tendered into evidence his own affidavit Ex.OP-2/1 and closed the evidence on behalf of opposite party no.2.
- Opposite party no.3 had tendered into evidence her own affidavit Ex.OP-3/1 along with one document Ex.OP-3/2 and closed her evidence.
10. We have carefully examined the documents/evidence produced on record along with that ignored to be produced to support/prove their respective ‘claims’ as pleaded by the present litigants in the light of the arguments as put forth by the learned counsels, while adjudicating the present complaint. We find that the present complaint prompted on account of the non-receipt (non-credit) of the surrender value of Rs.33,352/= of Policy # 473042346 by the OP1 insurers in the complainant’s SB A/c # 910010038408154 with the OP2 Bank. However, the OP1 insurers through the written statement and also through the deposition Ex.OP1 do claim having remitted the Policy S.V. Amount of Rs.33,352/= to the complainant via NEFT in A/c # 913010017493385 on 17.07.2013 with the OP2 Axis Bank as duly provided by the complainant, herself. Somehow, the OP1 insurers have failed to provide any cogent evidence of the claimed mandate and in its absence it amounts nothing more than a ‘bald’ statement. The complainant cannot possibly provide the OP1 insurers incorrect a/c information (including cancelled A/c ‘cheque’ etc) and even if the complainant had done so the OP1 funds-transferor could have noticed the ‘wrong’ A/c holder’s name and proceeded ahead with the incorrect NEFT. We are of the considered opinion fairly based upon the available evidence that the Policy SV amount transfer (in question) had been an act of gross ‘negligence’ on the part of the OP1 insurers and it also amounts to ‘deficiency in service’ on its part. The Ex.OP1/2 has been wrongly exhibited as the complainant’s remittance ‘mandate’ since it is nowhere signed by the complainant and contains the SB A/c of the OP3 beneficiary instead that of the complainant. It is sad that the OP1 insurers instead of admitting its wrong and having its suo-moto undone, have knowingly contested the same in an attempt to justify it. We also find that the present complaint has never been time-barred since the date of advice to the complainant of even the wrong credit has not been produced on the proceedings and as such we find the present complaint within limitation and statutorily maintainable. Under the circumstances, we find that the OP1 insurers are not left with any unanswered claim to put forth further and contest.
11. In the light of the all above, we partly allow the present complaint and thus ORDER the OP1 insurers to remit the full Policy Surrender Value (as on the fresh present date of payment) to the complainant in her correct SB A/c (of her choice) besides Rs 3,000/= as compensation and Rs.2,000/= as cost of litigation within 30 days of the receipt of the copy of these orders otherwise the awarded amount shall attract interest @ 9% PA from the date of complaint till actual payment. The OP1 insurers shall however be at liberty to legally recover the ‘funds-credit’ afforded to the OP3 beneficiary through valid means adopted as prescribed in law. It shall also be the discretionary prerogative of the OP1 LIC to recover its erroneously credited amount from its erring officials or not.
12. Copy of the order be communicated to the parties free of charges. After compliance, file be consigned to record.
(Naveen Puri)
President.
ANNOUNCED: (Jagdeep Kaur)
APRIL, 05, 2016 Member.
*YP*
