DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR.
Complaint No. 008
Instituted on: 03.01.2017
Decided on: 17.05.2017
Rajinder Kumar Goyal son of Sh. Narata Ram Goyal, C/o Hero Motocorp Agency, Patiala Road, Sangrur.
…Complainant
Versus
1. Metlife India Insurance Co. Ltd. Registered Office address: Brigade Seshamahal 5, Vani Vilas Road, Basavanagudi, Bangalore-560004 through its Manager.
2. PNB Metlife India Insurance Company Ltd. No.3266/1, Sherawala Gate, Behind SBOP Head Office, Patiala 147001.
3. Punjab National Bank, Main Branch, Sangrur through its Chief Manager.
..Opposite parties.
For the complainant : Shri S.P.Sharma, Adv.
For Opp.party No.1&2: Shri G.P.Sharma, Adv.
For Opp.party No.3 : Exparte.
Quorum: Sukhpal Singh Gill, President
Sarita Garg, Member
Vinod Kumar Gulati, Member
Order by : Sukhpal Singh Gill, President.
1. Shri Rajinder Kumar Goyal, 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 was having a CC limit with the OP number 3 and the then branch manager of the OP number 3 intimated to get the PNB Metlife Insurance policies and on his assurance the complainant invested an amount of Rs.50,000/- and Rs.1,25,000/-, respectively in policy bearing numbers 21181839 and 20694332. It is further averred that the complainant earlier filed a complaint titled as Rajinder Kumar Goyal vs. Metlife India and others and the matter was compromised and the Ops returned the premium amount of the complainant i.e. Rs.50,000/- and Rs.1,25,000/- under the above said two policies, but no interest amount was paid. It is further averred that though the complainant requested the Ops a number of times to pay the interest amount, but all in vain. Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the OPs, the complainant has prayed that the OPs be directed to pay to the complainant the interest amount of Rs.30,000/- along with interest @ 9% per annum on the said amount and further claimed compensation and litigation expenses.
2. In reply of the complaint filed by Ops number 1 and 2, legal objections are taken up on the grounds that the instant complaint is barred by the principles of res judicata as the complainant had earlier filed a complaint on the same cause of action bearing number 386/2015 and the said complaint was dismissed vide order dated 11.12.2015 for want of prosecution. That as per the amicable settlement between the parties, the OPs refunded the premium amount of Rs.50,000/- and Rs.1,25,000/- under both the policies and that the complaint is false and frivolous which should be dismissed with special costs. On merits, it has been stated that the amount of policies i.e. Rs.50,000/- and Rs.1,25,000/- has already been refunded to the complainant as per the amicable settlement and nothing is due towards the Ops. Lastly, the Ops have prayed for dismissal of the complaint with special costs.
3. The learned counsel for the complainant has produced Ex.C-1 affidavit, Ex.C-2 copy of welcome letter, Ex.C-3 certified copy of order dated 11.12.2015 and closed evidence. On the other hand, the leaned counsel for OP number 1 and 2 has produced Ex.OP1&2/1 affidavit along with Annexure Ex.OP-1 and closed evidence.
4. We have carefully perused the complaint, version of the opposite parties and evidence produced on the file and also heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties. In our opinion, the complaint merits dismissal, for these reasons.
5. At the very outset, a bare perusal of the complaint file reveals that earlier the complainant filed a complaint before this Forum on 1.6.2015, which was dismissed for want of prosecution on 11.12.2015, as the complainant did not appear on that date despite the fact he was called several times nor the complainant deposited the costs of Rs.200/- imposed on him nor produced evidence. Further it is worth mentioning here that it is the own case of the complainant in the complaint in para number 5 that the complainant had earlier field a complaint titled as Rajinder Kumar Goyal vs. Met Life India and others and the matter was compromised as the opposite parties have returned the premium amount of the complainant i.e. Rs.50,000/- against policy number 21181839 and Rs.1,25,000/- against policy number 20694332, but the interest was not paid. The complainant has not produced any documentary evidence on record to show that the interest was ever agreed by the Ops to pay to the complainant. Moreover, it is specifically mentioned in the written reply that as per the amicable settlement between the parties, the opposite party refunded the premium amount of Rs.50,000/- and Rs.1,25,000/- against the policies in question, which amount was paid to the complainant and accepted by him. As such, it is proved on record that the opposite parties have paid the amount against the policies and there is nothing on record to show that the Ops were required to pay the interest on the amount of policies as claimed in the present case. In the circumstances of the case, we find no case made out in favour of the complainant.
6. In view of our above discussion, we dismiss the complaint of the complainant. In the circumstances of the case, 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.
May 17, 2017.
(Sukhpal Singh Gill)
President
(Sarita Garg)
Member
(Vinod Kumar Gulati)
Member
