STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, U.T., CHANDIGARH First Appeal No. | : | 322 of 2012 | Date of Institution | : | 21.09.2012 | Date of Decision | : | 01.10.2012 |
Bhupinder Kumar, H.No.2375, Sector 40-C, Chandigarh ……Appellant/complainant V e r s u s1. Max New York Life Insurance Co. Ltd., Sector 8, Chandigarh, through its Branch Manager. 2. Max New York Life Insurance Company Ltd., 11th Floor, DLF Square, Jacaranda Marg, DLF Phase-II, Gurgaon-122002, through its Managing Director. ....Respondents/Opposite Parties Appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. BEFORE: JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER (RETD.), PRESIDENT. MRS. NEENA SANDHU, MEMBER. Argued by: Sh. H.P.S. Kochhar, Advocate for the appellant. PER JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER (RETD.), PRESIDENT This appeal is directed against the order dated 21.08.2012, rendered by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, U.T., Chandigarh (hereinafter to be called as the District Forum only), vide which, it accepted the complaint, filed by the complainant (now appellant), and directed the Opposite Parties(now respondents), as under:- “As a result of the above discussion, the complaint is allowed and OPs are directed to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- to the complainant as compensation for mental agony and harassment and Rs.5,000/- as costs of litigation, within one month, failing which, OPs are liable to pay interest @ 12% p.a. on the awarded amount, from the date of filing of the complaint till its realization, besides Rs.5,000/- as costs of litigation”. 2. The facts, in brief, are that the complainant, being allured by the assurances of the Agent of the Opposite Parties, opted to purchase Insurance Policies, for the period from 02.09.2009 to 16.06.2011 and, as such, made payment of Rs.1,20,000/-, as premium. He was shocked to receive the Policies, for which, the total premium amount was Rs.1,18,112.93 only, and, more so, the premium of the same (policies) had been bifurcated. The complainant was further shocked to see the Policies received from time to time, that the proposal forms were never signed by him. It was stated that, on receipt of first four Policies, by post, on 29.11.2010, the complainant made written complaint to the Opposite Parties, and, on the same date, opted for cancellation of the same. The Opposite Parties, however, did not cancel the same, on the ground, that the request was made after the expiry of free-look-period. It was further stated that the aforesaid acts of the Opposite Parties, amounted to deficiency, in rendering service, as also indulgence into unfair trade practice. When the grievance of the complainant, was not redressed, left with no alternative, a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter to be called as the Act only), was filed, directing the Opposite Parties, to cancel all the Policies, and refund Rs.1,20,000/-, taken from him, by them, as premium, alongwith interest @12% P.A.; pay compensation for causing mental agony and physical harassment, to the tune of Rs.1 lac; and pay cost of litigation to the tune of Rs.11,000/-. 3. Opposite Parties No.1 & 2, in their joint written version, admitted that the Insurance Policies were issued, as per the proposal forms, submitted by the complainant. It was stated that the Policies were issued by them, and received by the complainant, whereafter, no written or oral complaint was received from him. It was further stated the complainant was asked to provide the specimen of bank signatures, but he refused to do so. It was further stated that certified copy of the complaint, for matching the signatures of the complainant, was obtained by the Counsel for the Opposite Parties, and sent to the competent authority. It was further stated that, all the Insurance Policies of the complainant, were cancelled and the complete amount of the same was refunded to him, which was accepted by him. It was further stated that neither there was any deficiency, in rendering service, on the part of the Opposite Parties, nor they indulged into unfair trade practice. The remaining averments, were denied, being wrong. 4. The Parties led evidence, in support of their case. 5. After hearing the Counsel for the parties, and, on going through the evidence, and record of the case, the District Forum, came to the conclusion, that, admittedly, the Policies had already been cancelled, and payments thereof, had already been made to the complainant. The District Forum, however, held that mental agony and physical harassment was caused to the complainant, for which he was required to be compensated. 6. Ultimately, the District Forum accepted the complaint, in the manner, referred to, in the opening para of the instant order. 7. Feeling aggrieved, against the non-grant of interest, on the amount already refunded by the Opposite Parties, inadequacy of compensation and litigation costs, awarded by the District Forum, the instant appeal, has been filed by the appellant/complainant. 8. We have heard the Counsel for the appellant, and, have gone through the evidence, and record of the case, carefully. 9. The Counsel for the appellant, submitted that, as soon as, the Policies were received by the complainant/appellant, he immediately, requested for cancellation of the same, but the same were not cancelled, by the Opposite Parties/respondents, immediately, on the ground, that such request had been made, after the expiry of free-look-period. He further submitted, that, no doubt, the Policies already stood cancelled, by the Opposite Parties, and the amounts thereof were paid to him. He further submitted that since the Opposite Parties, by not cancelling the Policies, as and when the request was made, dragged the complainant, to unnecessary litigation and caused him a lot of mental agony and physical harassment, he was required to be awarded adequate compensation, commensurate with the facts and circumstances of the case, as also the interest on the amount refunded to him, but the District Forum, failed to do so. He further submitted that the order of the District Forum, deserves to be modified, by enhancing the amount of compensation and cost of litigation, as also by directing the payment of interest, on the amount already paid by the Opposite Parties, to the complainant. 10. After giving our thoughtful consideration, to the - contentions, advanced by the Counsel for the appellant, and the evidence, on record, we are of the considered opinion, that the appeal is liable to be dismissed, at the preliminary stage, for the reasons to be recorded hereinafter. Undisputedly, the Policies were obtained by the complainant, from the Opposite Parties, on payment of premium. When the request was made by the complainant, for the cancellation of Policies, on receipt of the same, his request was declined, on the ground that the same had been made, after expiry of free-look period. The fact remains that the Policies have already been cancelled, and the amount due, against the same has already been paid to the complainant. No doubt, on account of the acts of omission and commission of the Opposite Parties, the complainant was dragged to unnecessary litigation. He thus, suffered mental agony and physical harassment. It may be stated here, that the compensation required to be granted, by the Consumer Fora, should be fair, reasonable and commensurate with the facts and circumstances of the case. In the instant case, the District Forum, granted compensation, in the sum of Rs.10,000/- and litigation costs to the tune of Rs.5,000/-, with a further direction, that the amount be paid within one month, failing which interest @12% P.A., was to be paid by the Opposite Parties, from the date of filing the complaint on the awarded amount. In our considered opinion, the District Forum properly took into consideration, the facts and circumstances of the case, and evidence, on record, as also the mental agony and physical harassment caused to the complainant, at the hands of the Opposite Parties, at the time of granting the relief. No ground, whatsoever, is made out, for the grant of interest, enhancement of compensation and litigation costs. The compensation and litigation costs, awarded by the District Forum, in our considered opinion, are reasonable, fair and adequate. These cannot be said to be unreasonable, unfair and inadequate, in any manner. The order of the District Forum, is, thus, legal and valid. The submission of the Counsel for the appellant, being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same stands rejected. 11. No other point, was urged, by the Counsel for the appellant. 12. In view of the above discussion, it is held that the order passed by the District Forum, being based on the correct appreciation of evidence, and law, on the point, does not suffer from any illegality or perversity, warranting the interference of this Commission. 13. For the reasons recorded above, the appeal, being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same is dismissed, at the preliminary stage, with no order as to costs. The order of the District Forum is upheld. 14. Certified copies of this order, be sent to the parties, free of charge. 15. The file be consigned to Record Room, after completion Pronounced. October 1, 2012 Sd/- [JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER (RETD.)] PRESIDENT Sd/- [NEENA SANDHU] MEMBER Rg
| | HON'BLE MRS. NEENA SANDHU, MEMBER | HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER, PRESIDENT | , | |
