Delhi

StateCommission

A/603/2017

SH. ALOK GARG - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S SBI LIFE INSURANCE CO. LTD. & ANR. - Opp.Party(s)

25 Nov 2019

ORDER

IN THE STATE COMMISSION : DELHI

(Constituted under Section 9 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986)

Date of Arguments :25.11.2019

Date of Decision : 05.02.2019

FIRST APPEAL NO.603/2017

In the matter of:

 

Shri Alok Garg,

S/o. Shri Shiv Kumar Garg,

R/o. C-22, Sector-39,

Noida-201303.                                                                           …..Appellant

 

Versus

 

1. M/s. SBI Life Insurance Company Ltd.,

Service to be effected through

The Managing Director,

112, 2^nd Floor, Dayanand Road,

Opp. Golcha Cinema,

Daryaganj, New Delhi-110002.

 

2. Ms. State Bank of India,

Service to be effected through

The Assistant General Manager,

Delhi RACPC,

A-Block, 11 Parliament Street,

New Delhi.

 

3. Ms. State Bank of India,

Service to be effected through

The Branch Manager,

Anand Vihar Branch,

C-61, Anand Vihar,

Vikas Marg, delhi-110092.

 

4. Ms. State Bank of India,

Service to be effected through

The Assistant General Manager,

RASMEC, Agarwal Fun City Mall,

1.  

Karkardooma, Shahdara,

• ………Respondents

 

CORAM

Hon’ble Sh. O. P. Gupta, Member (Judicial)

1.     Whether reporters of local newspaper be allowed to see the judgment?                                                      Yes/No

2.      To be referred to the reporter or not?                                                                                                           Yes/No

Shri O.P. Gupta, Member (Judicial)

JUDGEMENT

 

1. Challenge in the present appeal is to order dated 22.09.17 passed by District Forum in CC no.127/16 vide which OP-1 was directed to refund Rs.574/- alongwith interest @6% p.a. w.e.f. 30.12.15 till the date of payment. He was also awarded a sum of Rs.3000/- as compensation including cost of litigation.
2. The case of the appellant was that at the time of availing house loan from SBI, he also applied for SBI Life Insurance Policy. It was stated in the proposal form that life cover would be independent of disbursement of loan. OP-1 i.e. SBI Life Insurance Company Ltd informed through sms on 26.05.14 that master policy no. 70000011107 “Rinn Raksha Plan” was  issued against account no.33816923020. On 28.05.14 appellant requested for cancellation of policy in the free look period and informed about non receipt of policy. OP-1 requested him  to collect the policy from the branch and complete requisite documents to process cancellation of policy. He again requested for cancellation of policy  through mail dated 05.06.14. Since no action was taken by OP-1, he made complaint to insurance ombudsman which was dismissed vide order dated 04.02.16 on the ground that complainant had not complyoied with the requisite formalities. However ombudsman  ordered insurance  company to refund premium after deducting statutory charges as per IRDA guidelines. The complainant received Rs.7,292/- on 30.12.15 out of Rs.7,866/- paid as premium of the policy. The amount of Rs.574/- was calculated by the District Forum after deducting the sum received from the premium paid.
3. The complainant sought refund of full premium  i.e. Rs.7,866/- alongwith interest a@18% p.a. . he also claimed Rs.2,000/- towards expenses on postal communication etc and Rs.5,000/- as litigation expenses.
4. OP-1 filed a WS pleading that in terms of orders of ombudsman it had refunded Rs.6,858/- with interest of Rs.434/-. A sum of Rs.800/- was deducted on account of stamp duty and Rs.182/- as risk premium and Rs.26.39/- as sales tax on risk premium. Total Rs.1,008/- was deducted. Since premium has been deducted no deficiency in service has been committed.
5. OP-2 to 4 did not appear despite service and they were proceeded exparte by the District Forum vide order dated 14.12.16.
6. After going through the material on record the District Forum found that since proposal asked for simple life cover, OP-1 was un-justified in issuing the policy linked with housing loan. Accordingly it directed refund of the difference amount.
7. In appeal the grievance of the appellant is that District Forum has not provided sufficient  compensation.. According to him the respondent no.2 has wrongly deducted Rs.7,292/- instead of Rs.6,858/-, the reason being that difference of Rs.434/- was interest. A sum of Rs.3,000/- for 11 hearings  is on the lower side. Hence he has sought interest @18% p.a. on Rs.6,858/- from 13.05.14 to 13.12.15, refund of Rs.434/- wrongly deducted by respondent no.1, interest @18% p.a. on said Rs.434/- from 31.12.15 to actual payment, enhance cost of litigation to Rs.7,000/-.
8. I have gone through the material on record and heard the arguments. I do not find much force in the appeal. Cost of litigation is not dependent on number of hearings, it has to be proportionate to the amount involved. Since the amount involved was about Rs.8,000/-, compensation of Rs.3,000/- is more than sufficient.
9. However the appellant is justified to the extent that OP wrongly deducted Rs.434/- paid by it as interest. Hence the impugned order is modified to the effect that respondent no.1 would refund Rs.1,008/- instead of Rs.574/- with interest @ Rs.6/- p.a. from 30.12.15 till  the date of payment and compensation of Rs.3,000/-. The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
10. Copy of the order be sent to both the parties free of cost.
11. One copy of the order sent to District Forum for information.
12. File be consigned to record room.

 

(O.P. GUPTA)                                                    

  MEMBER (JUDICIAL)