Per Shri Dhanraj Khamatkar, - Hon’ble Member:

     This appeal takes an exception to an order dated 09.03.2010 passed by the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, District Pune in Consumer Complaint No.174/2009.

     Facts of the case can be summarised as under:

The original Complainant, present Respondent had taken a policy from the Appellant/original Opponent in the year 1991.  The tenure of the policy was 35 years.  The original Complainant was paying the premium regularly.  On 26.04.2007 the original Complainant made a request to the Opponent to change in the tenure of the of the policy from 35 years to 17 years.  Finally on 11.07.2007 the Appellant/original Opponent gave an offer to the Complainant for change in tenure of the policy on payment of Rs.1,15,378/-.  The Respondent/original Complainant had given his consent on 19.07.2007 and paid Rs.1,15,378/- vide his letter dated 03.08.2007.  The appellant accepted the payment towards balance of premium paid from 01.08.1991 to 01.08.2006 together with interest.  The policy matured on 01.08.2008.

     On 05.01.2008 it was noticed by the Appellant that there was a mistake in calculating the amount of Rs.1,15,378/- as the actual amount should have been rs.1,78,199/- and hence, there is difference of Rs.62,821/-. Accordingly, the Appellant had informed the Respondent/original Complainant to deposit the amount of Rs.62,821/-.  The Respondent/original Complainant approached to the CRM of the Appellant company.  As there was no response from the CRM of the Appellant company he approached to the Ombudsman.   Finally the Appellant requested the Respondent to accept the undisputed amount of Rs.2,10,000/- and the Complainant received the amount on 09.01.2009.

     Therefore, Respondent/original Complainant had filed a complaint praying that the withholding the amount of Rs.62,821/- by the Appellant amounts to deficiency in service and prayed for a direction against the Opponent to refund the said amount along with interest.

     The District Forum after hearing both the parties has passed an order dated 09.03.2010 directing the Appellant to pay an amount of Rs.62,821/- with interest @ 9% per annum from 01.08.2008 till the realisation thereof by the Complainant within a period of two months.  It is against this order that the present Appeal is filed.

     We heard Mr.Vidyarthi, Advocate for the Appellant and Mr.Agashe, Advocate for the Respondent.

     Admittedly the Complainant had taken policy from the Appellant in the year 1991 for a tenure of 35 years.  It is not disputed that Complainant had made a request to the Appellant to change tenure of the policy from 35 years to 17 years.  It is also not disputed that on 11.07.2007 the appellant had given an offer to the Respondent for change in tenure of the policy from 35 years to 17 years on payment of Rs.1,15,378/-.  It is also not disputed that the Respondent/original Complainant had given his consent on 19.07.2007 to the appellant that he is ready to pay the amount communicated by the Appellant. Accordingly he made a payment on 03.08.2007.  The Appellant has accepted the payments of the Respondents towards balance premium paid from 01.08.1991 to 01.08.2006. 

Only point of dispute is, Appellant is contending that while calculating an amount to be paid by the Respondent they have committed a mistake.  The amount should have been Rs.1,78,199/- and there is a difference of Rs.62,821/-.  The Appellant has requested the Respondent to deposit the said amount.  However, the Respondent has declined to pay the amount.  The Respondent approached to the CRM, however, he did not get any response.  Then he approached to the Ombudsman, however his grievance was not redressed to his satisfaction.  In the meantime the policy matured on 01.08.2008 and undisputed amount of Rs.2,10,000/- has been paid to the Respondent. 

     The point of dispute is whether the Appellant is right in asking the Respondent to pay amount of Rs.62,821/- with the acceptance of the amount for the offer of changing tenure of the policy from 35 years to 17 years by the Appellant and after payment of the same by the Respondent on 03.08.2007 the tenure of the policy changed from 35 years to 17 years and new contract has come into existence, which is binding on both the parties.  At the time of maturity of the policy raising a point that there was a mistake in the calculation of the amount of an offer by the Appellant and asking the Respondent to pay the amount is not legal and correct.  The mistake is on the part of the Appellant and it is not the mistake of the Respondent. 

    The Ld. Counsel for the Appellant had tried to contend that the Appellant has accepted the maturity amount of the Policy is not correct as the Respondent has accepted the undisputed amount “under protest”.  At page no.41 there is a copy of letter written by the Respondent to the Appellant wherein he has written that “I am accepting only the non-disputed amount of Rs.2,10,959/- under protest, towards the part payment of the claim maturity amount under the Reference Policy”.  The District Forum has rightly come to the conclusion that there is deficiency in service on the part of the Appellant and hence, passed the order.  The appeal is devoid of any merit.  We hold accordingly and pass the following order:

O  R  D  E  R

         (i)          Appeal is dismissed.

       (ii)          No order as to costs.