Punjab

Sangrur

CC/1621/2015

Sher Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Max New York LIC - Opp.Party(s)

Shri Rahul Sharma

29 Aug 2016

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR.

                                                               

                                                Complaint No.  1621

                                                Instituted on:    12.12.2015

                                                Decided on:       29.08.2016

 

Sher Singh aged 43 years son of Shri Bachan Singh, resident of Village Mehlan, Tehsil Sunam and District Sangrur.

                                                        ..Complainant

                                Versus

 

1.     Max New York Life Insurance Co. Ltd. 90-A, Udyog Vihar, Sector 18, Gurgaon (Haryana).

2.     Max New York Life Insurance Co. Ltd. Nabha Gate, Sangrur through its Branch Manager.

                                                                ..Opposite parties

 

For the complainant  :       Shri Rahul Sharma, Adv.

For opposite parties  :       Shri Ashi Goyal, Advocate.

 

 

Quorum:   Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

K.C.Sharma, Member

                Sarita Garg, Member

 

 

Order by : Sukhpal Singh Gill, President.

 

1.             Shri Sher Singh, complainant (referred to as complainant in short) has preferred the present complaint against the opposite parties (referred to as OPs in short) on the ground that the complainant availed the services of the OPs by investing an amount of Rs.60,000/- with the OPs through their agent Mr. Didar Singh with an assurance that the same will be double after a period of five years, but no policy was provided to the complainant. It is further averred that the policy number of the complainant is 489144626. It is further averred that the complainant had invested the above said amount of Rs.60,000/- i.e. Rs.15,000/- on 5.12.2008, Rs.15000/- on 9.12.2008 and Rs.30,000/- on 3.9.2010. The grievance of the complainant is that though he requested the Ops so many times for payment of Rs.1,20,000/-, but of no avail. Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the Ops, the complainant has prayed that the OPs be directed to pay him the maturity amount of Rs.1,20,000/- along with interest @ 18% per annum from the date of maturity till realisation and further to pay compensation and litigation expenses.

 

2.             Record shows that the Ops did not file any written reply despite the fact so many opportunities were granted even on payment of costs, as such, the opportunity to file written reply by the Ops was closed by order of the Forum on 30.03.2016.

 

3.             The learned counsel for the complainant has produced Ex.C-1 affidavit, Ex.C-2 copy of legal notice, Ex.C-3 and Ex.C-4 postal receipts, Ex.C-5 acknowledgement dated 5.12.2008, Ex.C-6 copy of acknowledgement dated 9.12.2008, Ex.C-7 payment receipt and closed evidence. But, the Ops did not produce any evidence despite giving so many opportunities, as such the evidence of the Ops was closed by order of the Forum on 12.08.2016.

 

4.             We have very carefully perused the pleadings of the parties and heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties. In our opinion, the complaint merits dismissal, for these reasons.

 

5.             It is an admitted fact of the complainant that he deposited an amount of Rs.60,000/- with the Ops on different dates vide receipts on record as Ex.C-5, Ex.C-6 and Ex.C-7.  But, in the present case, the sole grievance of the complainant is that the Ops did not pay him the assured amount of Rs.1,20,000/- i.e. double amount of the invested amount.  On the other hand, the stand of the Ops is that the amount of Rs.60,000/- has already been refunded to the complainant, more so when no assurance was ever given to the complainant that the amount of Rs.1,20,000/- would be paid after a period of five years.  The complainant has not produced on record even the policy of the investment to show us whether the Ops were bound to refund to the complainant an amount of Rs.1,20,000/- after a period of five years.  There is no explanation from the side of the complainant that why he withheld such a vital document from this Forum, if he was in the possession of the same.  It is worth mentioning here that the OPs have stated that an amount of Rs.60,000/- has already been paid to the complainant vide cheque number 679142 dated 27.2.2015, which has already been cleared on 17.3.2015 and the same has been credited to his account.  There is no specific denial of the complainant about the receipt of the same.  In the circumstances, the fact remains that the complainant has produced nothing on record to show that the OPs ever assured the complainant that the invested amount will be paid in double after a period of five years.  As such, we are unable to go with the contention of the complainant, as the complainant has to stand on his own legs and the complainant cannot take any benefits of non filing of the written reply and non production of the documents by the OPs.  As such, we feel that the complainant has failed to prove his case by producing cogent, reliable and trustworthy evidence on record.

 

6.             In view of our above discussion, we find no merit in the complaint and the same is dismissed. However, the parties are left to bear their own costs.  A copy of this order be issued to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to records.

                Pronounced.

                August 29, 2016.

                                                       

                                                        (Sukhpal Singh Gill)

                                                                President

 

 

 

                                                                (K.C.Sharma)

                                                                    Member