Date of Filing:17.11.2009<br /> Date of Order: 23.07.2010<br /> <br /> 2<br /> <br /> BEFORE THE II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SESHADRIPURAM BANGALORE-20<br /> <br /> Dated: 23RD DAY OF JULY 2010<br /> <br /> PRESENT<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> Sri S.S. NAGARALE, B.A, LL.B. (SPL.), President.<br /> Smt. D. LEELAVATHI, M.A.LL.B, Member.<br /> Sri BALAKRISHNA. V. MASALI, B.A, LL.B. (SPL.), Member.<br /> COMPLAINT NO.: 2687 OF 2009<br /> T.T. Venkataramana Reddy<br /> S/o. Pedda Guruva Reddy<br /> No. 78, Prashanthinagar Extension<br /> Behind ISRO Layout<br /> Bangalore 560 078 Complainant<br /> <br /> V/S<br /> <br /> M/s. Tata AIG Life Insurance Co. Ltd.<br /> (H.O. at Peninsula Towers, 6th Floor<br /> Peninsula Corporate Park, Ganpatrao<br /> Kadam Marg, Lower Parel Mumbai 400 013)<br /> <br /> Represented by:<br /> Manager (Policy Owner Services)<br /> Bangalore Zone<br /> Tata AIG Life Insurance Co. Ltd.<br /> 3rd Floor, Rathnam’s Complex<br /> No. 10/5, Kasturba Road<br /> Bangalore 560 001 Opposite Party<br /> <br /> ORDER<br /> By the President Sri S.S. Nagarale<br /> <br /> This is a complaint filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act seeking direction to the opposite party to reinstate policy No. C-31103203 and keep the said policy valid with other reliefs.<br /> The complainant had purchased life policy from opposite party. The insured is minor daughter of complainant. Premium for the policy is Rs. 30,011/- p.a. First premium was paid on 15.02.2005. A cheque for Rs. 30,011/- dated 20.02.2006 was given. However, opposite party demanded payment of Rs. 30,810/- for reinstatement of policy. Complainant has paid Rs. 64,711/- and requested for waiver of interest and penalty. Opposite party choose to refund the amount by cheque. Opposite party illegally and unilaterally refused to reinstate the policy. Sum of Rs. 64,711/- is also in the custody of opposite party. Legal notice was issued to opposite party. There is no response from the opposite party. Opposite party is refusing to keep the life policy in force without assigning any reason. Hence, the complaint for deficiency of service.<br /> 2. The opposite party has filed fence version admitting that complainant paid premium payment of Rs. 64,711/- p.a. for instatement of policy which was kept pending. The entire premium amount of Rs. 64,711/- was duly refunded to the complainant. Policy kept lapsed due to negligence of the complainant. There is no negligence on the part of opposite party.<br /> 3. Arguments are heard.<br /> 4. During the course of argument the opposite party has filed memo of calculation and given option to the complainant to pay Rs. 66,763/- for reinstatement of policy. The fact that the amount sent by opposite party through cheque Rs. 64,711/- has not been encashed by complainant is admitted one. The cheque had been lapsed. The cheque amount of Rs. 64,711/- is with the opposite party right now. The learned advocate for the complainant has filed a memo stating that complainant is ready to pay premium amount due on 15.02.2009 and 15.02.2010 total amount of Rs. 60,022/- plus applicable taxes without interest and penalty within the time limit stipulated in the order of Forum and the complainant does not insist for grant of compensation etc. since, the prayer would become redundant and the cheque amount of Rs. 64,711/- has been remained throughout with the opposite party. The complainant undertakes to return the lapsed cheque to the opposite party if so required by the opposite party. The complainant infact came forward for settlement of the issues with the opposite party and ready to pay Rs. 60,022/- for reviving the policy. There is no objection for reinstatement of the policy. The learned counsel for the opposite party submitted that the complainant has to pay Rs. 66,763/- which includes penalty and interest. However, the complainant insist and has come forward to pay Rs 60,022/- and requested to waive penalty and interest. There is considerable force and merit in submission of the complainant. Therefore, on the facts and circumstances of the case it is just, fair and reasonable to direct the opposite party to accept Rs. 60,022/- from the complainant and reinstate the policy No. C311033203. The penalty and interest which is being demanded by the opposite party could be waived since, the complainant is a ‘Consumer’ under the definition of Consumer Protection Act and the Act is enacted to safeguard the better interests of consumers the interest of the complainant requires to be protected since, the complainant has fairly came forward to pay the premium due totaling Rs. 60,022/-. Therefore, it is fair, just and reasonable on the part of opposite party to accept that amount and reinstate the policy. In the result I proceed to pass the following:<br /> ORDER<br /> 5. The complaint is allowed. The opposite party is directed to receive Rs. 60,022/- the premium amount due from the complainant and reinstate the policy No. C 311033203. The complainant shall return the lapsed cheque to the opposite party if so required by the opposite party. There is no order as to cost.<br /> 6. Send the copy of this Order to both the parties free of costs immediately. <br /> 7. Pronounced in the Open Forum on this 23RD DAY OF JULY 2010. <br /> Order accordingly,<br /> <br /> PRESIDENT<br /> We concur the above findings.<br /> <br /> MEMBER MEMBER<br />