Date of Filing:24.05.2010<br /> Date of Order: 12.08.2010<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> BEFORE THE II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM SESHADRIPURAM BANGALORE-20<br /> <br /> Dated: 12TH DAY OF AUGUST 2010<br /> PRESENT<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> Sri. S.S. NAGARALE, B.A, LL.B. (SPL.), President.<br /> Smt. D. LEELAVATHI, M.A.LL.B, Member.<br /> Sri. BALAKRISHNA. V. MASALI, B.A, LL.B. (SPL.), Member.<br /> <br /> COMPLAINT NO: 1184 OF 2010 <br /> <br /> <br /> Mr. Mithilesh Kashyap, <br /> No.3, Ground Floor, Sree Akahaya,<br /> Ghunasheela layout, 19th Cross,<br /> 24th Main, J.P.Nagar 5th Phase,<br /> Bangalore-78. Complainant<br /> <br /> V/S<br /> <br /> Max Newyork Life Insurance<br /> 24th Main Road, 1st Phase, <br /> J.P.Nagar,<br /> Bangalore-78. Opposite party<br /> <br /> ORDER<br /> <br /> By the President Sri. S.S. Nagarale<br /> <br /> This is a complaint filed by the complainant claiming compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- from the opposite party. The facts of the case are that the complainant had applied for the cancellation of policy on 19-4-2010. He was told that with 15 to 20 working days the refund amount Rs.65,523/- will get credited into his account. The complainant has not received the refund amount. It has created financial hardship for the complainant and also affected personal and as well as professional reputation in the society and causing mental agony. Therefore, the complainant would demand a compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- from the opposite party. <br /> 2. The opposite party has filed defense version, stating that no dead line was given to the complainant. It is submitted that the opposite party duly surrendered the policy and credited the refund amount of Rs.65,523/- in the complainant’s account and informed him vide email dated 25-5-2010. The complaint made by the Complainant being devoid of any merits, be dismissed. <br /> 3. Heard, the arguments on both the sides. <br /> <br /> REASONS<br /> 4. The complainant has filed his complaint on 24-5-2010, it was admitted on 31-5-2010 and notice was ordered to be issued to the opposite party by this Fora. The complainant in his written argument submitted that he has received refund amount of Rs.65,523/- on 25-5-2010. By the facts it is clear that the opposite party before the receipt of notice from this Fora had complied the matter and the issue had been settled by the acceptance of refund amount by the complainant. The complainant argued that as per clause 4.2 of policy document the opposite party should have refunded the amount within 10 days after the termination. By reading clause 4.2 very carefully payment of amount within 10 days is not a mandatory what the said rule state that the op shall endeavor to pay within 10 days after receipt of notice, which means the opposite party shall make all possible endeavors to make the payment within 10 days. In this case admittedly, the policy was cancelled on 20-4-2010 and the complainant received the amount on 25-5-2010. This payment can not be considered as in ordinate delay so as to entitle the complainant to claim compensation. The complainant having accepted the refund on 25-5-2010 on every next day of filing of this complaint now, it can not maintain his complaint for the purpose of compensation. The complainant has claimed inflated compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- from the opposite party. This type of prayer has no basis of law or facts. The compensation claimed by the complainant according to him for 25 days delay in getting refund is neither maintainable nor justified. There is no such law or procedure to grant the compensation as claimed by the complainant. The court of law can not grant compensation merely on asking or on demand by the complainant. The complainant has not proved or established as to how and in what manner he sustained loss or mental agony for delay in getting refund. The delay made by the opposite party in this case is very insignificant, it cannot be considered as a malafide act of the opposite party. The complainant has not made any allegation of intentional delay on the part of the opposite party. The company may require that the matter has be processed and get approval from the concerned authorities and prepare refund cheque, take orders from the authorities in this way some delay naturally caused. Therefore, this delay can not be considered as a malafied or intentional delay. Therefore, the complainant is not justified in asking compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- from the opposite party. This is not a fit case to allow the complaint. In the result, I proceed to pass the following:-<br /> ORDER<br /> <br /> 5. The complaint is dismissed. No order as to costs. <br /> 6. Send the copy of this Order to both the parties free of costs immediately. <br /> 7. Pronounced in the Open Forum on this 12th DAY OF AUGUST 2010. <br /> Order accordingly,<br /> <br /> PRESIDENT<br /> We concur the above findings <br /> <br /> MEMBER MEMBER <br /> <br />