Date: 13-11-2014

Sri Debasis Bhattacharya

This appeal is directed against the order dt. 14-02-2013 in case No. 117/2012, passed by the ld. District Forum, South 24 Parganas, whereby the complaint case has been allowed on contest.  Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the same, the OP thereof has preferred this appeal.

In short, case of the Complainant is that he took an insurance policy being no. C222732619 from the OP.  He paid the second rounded off premium for a sum of Rs. 10,000/- as against the actual premium of Rs. 9,826/- for the year 2010 vide cheque no. 144973 dated 03-12-2010, drawn on United Bank of India, Lake Gardens branch, Kolkata 700 045, which has been encashed by the OP on 10-12-2010.  However, despite receipt of payment, the OP neglected to issue any receipt against such payment of premium.  When the Complainant enquired the matter with the Mumbai Office of the OP over phone on 15-12-2010, he was informed that an amount of Rs. 10,046/- stood due towards premium for the year 2010.  Thereafter, he visited the Kolkata Office of the OP on 22-12-2010 and spoke to the concerned officials along with documentary proof in support of timely payment of premium.  However, the said officials, despite assurance to redress his grievance, did not bother to get back to him and so he issued a letter to the OP on 04-01-2010.  The Complainant received a letter from the OP dated 05-01-2011 asking him to furnish copy of passbook, deposit slip, bank acknowledgement etc. with firm assertion as of non-receipt of renewal premium for the year 2010.  On 27-03-2011, he received an SMS on his mobile from the OP asking him to revive the insurance policy followed by repeated telephone calls by tele-callers of the OP.  Out of frustration, the Complainant sent a letter to the OP on 30-03-2011 asking them to refund the deposited amount of Rs. 20,000/- against which, the OP gave reply vide their letter dated 08-04-2011 denying receipt of renewal premiums and subsequently vide their letter dated 24-11-2011, the OP sent a cheque for Rs. 73/- towards refund of so-called unutilized premium.  Feeling aggrieved, the Complainant filed the instant complaint case.

As per the written version filed by the OP, when the Complainant approached them with his grievance vide letter dated 04-01-2011, they asked him vide their letter dated 05-01-2011 to furnish photocopy of bank passbook, deposit slip, bank acknowledgement etc. On enquiry, they came to know that the said cheque was deposited to the bank account of the Tata AIG General Insurance Co.  The OP by its letter dated 08-04-2011 informed the Complainant that it could arrange for transfer of funds from the said account to the said policy, for which they requested the Complainant to issue a consent letter to that effect.  However, in spite of receipt of their letter, the Complainant did not issue any confirmation letter, and as such the OP could not regularise the said policy. Therefore, they cannot be held responsible for the mess up and accordingly, the instant petition of complaint be dismissed.

It is to be considered in this appeal if there is any incongruity in the impugned order from factual and/or legal aspects, or not.

Decision with reasons

Ld. Advocate for the Appellant has submitted that the Complainant failed to pay the second premium itself being due in September 2010, for which the policy got lapsed.  When the Complainant informed by a letter dated 04-01-2011 that he paid the second premium through a Cheque No. 144973 dated 03-12-2010, but did not receive money receipt for the same, he was informed by the OP insurer vide letter dated 08-04-2011 that the payment was made by him to the bank account of the insurance company, which require transfer of funds from it to his policy, subject to confirmation by him.  But, the Complainant did not give any confirmation to that effect, for which the policy could not be restored.  Besides, the policy number was also not mentioned in the cheque by him.  Therefore, it was totally unwarranted on the part of the Ld. District Forum to hold them accountable for unfair trade practice.  Also, the Ld. District Forum, by giving a leeway of only 15 days to comply with the order, curtailed their right to move for an appeal before the higher Forum against such illegal order and the imposition of penalty @ Rs. 1,000/- per diem is totally a disproportionate and unreasonable proposition in the given facts and circumstances of the case. 

Ld. Advocate for the Respondent has submitted that the Complainant paid the second installment by a cheque dated 03-12-2010 and on the backside of it, policy number with his mobile number had been given to eliminate chances of any confusion.  So, it was quite unreasonable and unjustified for the OP insurance company to dilute the matter per se.  Against this backdrop, the Complainant issued a letter dated 04-01-2011 stating in clear terms that the said money was credited to their account on 10-12-2010, to which a malafide reply had been made by the OP insurance company.  Therefore, out of sheer disappointment, he sought for refund of the total deposited amount of Rs. 20,000/- against his policy with running banking interest accrued thereon.  Once again, a vague reply was given by the OP insurance company by a letter dated 08-04-2011.  Thereafter, by a letter dated 24-11-2011, they sent a paltry amount of Rs. 73/- as refund money.  Their sole purpose is to somehow appropriate and/or misappropriate the moneys sent by such insured persons, which has become a normal practice nowadays.  His very nominal prayer has been allowed by the Ld. District Forum, which should not have been appealed against.

It is found that the Complainant made out before the Ld. District Forum of his intention to get back only the amount of Rs. 20,000/-, which was deposited by him.  Accordingly, the Ld. Forum allowed his prayer without making any order as to penalty, cost or compensation.  The Ld. District Forum only admonished the OP and asked them/it to see that no such recurrence takes place in future.  There is no reason accepting the second premium beyond time and keeping it in suspended animation without giving effect to the same to the policy of the Complainant.  Such type of obnoxious activities on the part of the OP is unwholesome and quite unbecoming of an institution of repute.  Clearly, the policy number was mentioned on the backside of the cheque, which is a normal practice/custom/usage, which should have been known to the staff/officers of the OP insurance company.  This is clearly a blatant case of apathy of the OP insurance company towards their clients (insured).  The act of refunding a meager amount is demeaning on the part of the OP insurance company.  Considering all aspects, the award of  Rs. 20,000/- deposited by the Complainant is a proper one, which was passed without giving any litigation cost or compensation to the Complainant.  However, imposition of penalty @ Rs. 1,000/- per diem for default after 15 days appears to be a harsh one in the facts and circumstances of the case, and hence the same is modified to the extent below.

In the result, the appeal succeeds in part.

Hence,

ORDERED

that the appeal be and the same is allowed in part on contest against the Respondent, but without any order as to cost.  The impugned order is modified as follow:-

         The OP is directed to refund the sum of Rs. 20,000/- to the Complainant within 45 days hence along with interest @ 9% p.a. with effect from 10-12-2010 i.e. the date of credit of the second premium to the account of the OP, till final payment.