BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,
ERNAKULAM.
Date of filing : 08/12/2010
Date of Order : 30/11/2010
Present :-
Shri. A. Rajesh, President.
Shri. Paul Gomez, Member.
Smt. C.K. Lekhamma, Member.
C.C. No. 647/2010
Between
T.S. Ramachandran, | :: | Complainant |
S/o. Late Sekhara Pillai, Thoppil House, (Rama Nilayam), Punnapra South. P.O., Alappuzha – 688 004. |
| (By Adv. George Cherian Karippaparambil, H.B. 48, Panampilly Nagar, Cochin - 36) |
And
1. M/s. Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Co. Ltd., | :: | Opposite Parties |
3rd Floor, Ravi's Arcade. (Photo Fast Building), Near Padma Junction., M.G. Road, Kochi – 35. 2. Prathap Kumar, S/o. Sreedhara Kurup, Kaluthara House, Punnapra. P.O., Alappuzha – 688 004. |
| (Op.pty 1 by Adv. S. Sibha, 41/4262/D/2/B/ Metro Plaza, 2nd floor, Market Road (North), Cochin – 14) (Op.pty 2 by Adv. C.A. Chacko, Thengumoottil Building, Opp. High Court, High Court Road, Ernakulam, Kochi - 31) |
O R D E R
A. Rajesh, President.
1. The case of the complainant is as follows :-
The 2nd opposite party is the sales agent of the 1st opposite party. The 2nd opposite party had explained an investment scheme to the complainant, in which the complainant should invest Rs. 12,500/- in quarterly instalments for 3 years. The investment amount is aggregating to Rs. 1,50,000/- at the expiry of 3 years and the complainant can get about 90% of the amount invested and in the ensuing 6th year complainant can get the amount of Rs. 1,50,000/- invested with the 1st opposite party. The complainant along with the 2nd opposite party enquired in the office of the 1st opposite party. The 1st opposite party as well agreed to the same. Accordingly, the complainant had paid the quarterly payments of Rs. 12,500/- from 18-02-2004 to 13-12-2006. On 09-05-2007, the 1st opposite party refunded the amount of Rs. 1,29,668/- deducting an amount of Rs. 20,332/-. In May 2010, the complainant approached the 2nd opposite party for the balance amount of Rs. 1,50,000/- stating that there is no such claim. Thus, the complainant is before us seeking direction against the opposite parties to pay a total sum of Rs. 1,70,332/- with interest together with costs of the proceedings. This complaint hence.
2. The version of the 1st opposite party is as follows :-
The complainant took a unit linked policy from the 1st opposite party with a quarterly premium of Rs. 12,500/-. Unit linked policy having a maximum benefit period of 28 years from the commencement time and will get up to Rs. 3 lakhs insurance coverage upto the period the policy holder keeps the policy alive. The policy holder is at liberty to surrender at any time after 3 years. The complainant surrendered the policy on 17-04-2007 and received a sum of Rs. 1,29,668/-, the further claim of the complainant is barred by limitation. The complainant has no cause of action against the 1st opposite party and there is no deficiency in service on their part.
3. The defense of the 2nd opposite party is as follows :-
The 2nd opposite party was an agent of the 1st opposite party. All the schemes were explained to the complainant by the 1st opposite party only. Being the agent of the 1st opposite party, the 2nd opposite party has nothing to do with the payments and its scheme. The complainant has no cause of action against the 2nd opposite party.
4. The complainant was examined as PW1 and Ext. A1 was marked on his side. Neither oral nor documentary evidence was adduced by the opposite parties. Heard the counsel for the parties.
5. The points that arose for consideration are as follows :-
Whether the complaint is barred by limitation?
Whether the complainant is entitled to get a sum of Rs. 1,70,332/- with interest together with costs of the proceedings?
5. Point No. i. :- According to the 1st opposite party, the insurance policy was valid for 28 years from 27-03-2004. The complainant contends that he has received the amount of Rs. 1,29,668/- being the amount, he is entitled to get after 3 years. Further, he contends that he was bonafide under the belief that he is entitled to get an amount of Rs. 1,50,000/- after the expiry of 3 years. Nothing is on record to discontent the contentions of the complainant. In view of the matter, we have no hesitation to hold that the complaint is maintainable.
6. Point No. ii. :- It is not in dispute that the complainant joined the scheme of the 1st opposite party with effect from 27-03-2004 and paid quarterly premium of Rs. 12,500/- for 3 years and the complainant received a sum of Rs. 1,29,668/- from the 1st opposite party on 05-06-2007. The 1st opposite party is vehemently relying on the terms and conditions of the scheme, however, they failed to produce the same in this Forum for our perusal. The complainant as well did not take steps to produce the same in this Forum. Since the complainant has paid a total sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- and received a sum of Rs. 1,29, 668/-, he is entitled to get the balance amount of Rs. 20,332/- from the 1st opposite party with interest.
7. In the result, we partly allow the complaint and direct that the 1st opposite party shall pay Rs. 20,332/- with interest at the rate of 9% p.a. from the date of complaint till realisation.
The order shall be complied with, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
Pronounced in the open Forum on this the 30th day of November 2012.
Sd/- A. Rajesh, President.
Sd/- Paul Gomez, Member.
Sd/- C.K. Lekhamma, Member.
Forwarded/By Order,
Senior Superintendent.
A P P E N D I X
Complainant's Exhibits :-
Exhibit A1 | :: | Copy of the cheque dt. 09--05-2007 |
Opposite party's Exhibits :: Nil
Depositions :- | | |
PW1 | :: | T.S. Ramachandran – complainant. |
=========
