Haryana

Kurukshetra

CC/265/2019

Gurdev Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

NIA - Opp.Party(s)

Suresh kashyap

11 Jan 2022

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPTUES REDRESSAL  COMMISSION, KURUKSHETRA.

                                                     Complaint Case No.265 of 2019

                                                     Date of institution:5.07.2019                                                                  Date of decision:11.01.2022

                         

Gurdev Singh son of Shri Sadhu Ram resident of village Maniyarpur PO Mathana, District Kurukshetra.

                                                                …Complainant.

                        Versus

1.The New India Assurance Co. Limited, registered and Head office, New India Assurance Bldg. 87 M.G. Road, Fort, Mumbai 400001 through its Managing Director.

2. The New India Assurance Co. Limited Micro office Ladwa, near Indri Chowk, District Kurukshetra through its Branch Manager/In-charge.

3.Punjab National Bank Mathana, District Kurukshetra through its Branch Manager.

….Opposite parties.

Before:      Smt. Neelam Kashyap, President.

                Ms. Neelam, Member.

                Sh.  Issam Singh Sagwal, Member.

       

Present:     Sh.Suresh Kashyap Advocate for the complainant.

                Sh.Gaurav Gupta Advocate for the OP no.1 and 2.

                OP No.3  ex-parte.

ORDER

                This is a complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 moved by complainant Gurdev Singh  against  the New India Assurance Co.Limited etc. the opposite parties.

2.            It is stated in the complaint that the complainant  is having saving account bearing NO. 2549000100059076 with the OP No.3 and at the time of opening the saving account, the OP No.3 had assured the complainant to provide best services to the complainant. The  complainant purchased insurance policy bearing No.35360831180100000213 dated  10.7.2018 from the OP No.1 and 2 through its agent namely Pardeep Kumar of vehicle No. HR-01AF-6781  for the premium of Rs.6,790/-  for the period 10.7.2018 to 9.07.2019. It is submitted that the OP no.3 had transferred the premium amount from the account of the complainant in the account of OP No.1 and 2 regarding the premium of Rs.6790/- However, the total amount of Rs.13,580/- was deducted from the account of the complainant bearing No. 2549000100059076.  The  complainant approached the Ops and requested to refund the amount of Rs.6790/- many a times personally and also through an application to the DM, Karnal on 14.09.2018 and the agent of Ops no.1 and 2 requested to look into the matter for the refund of Rs.6790/- but no action has been taken by the Ops despite   repeated requests and service of legal notice, which amounts to deficiency in services on the part of the Ops.  Thus, the complainant has filed the present complaint alleging deficiency in services on the part of the Ops and prayed that the Ops be directed to refund the amount of Rs.6790/- as excess premium received from the complainant alongwith interest and compensation for the mental harassment and agony caused to the complainant.

3.             Upon notice OP No.1 and 2 appeared and filed written statement disputing the claim of the complainant. It has been submitted that answering Ops have received the premium amount of Rs.6790/- for issuance of the policy from the Punjab National Bank in the Bank account of answering OP. No subsequent payment or second time payment has been received in the bank of answering OP from Punjab National Bank on 6.7.2018 for issuance of the said policy No. 35360831180100000213, so there is no deficiency in services on the part of the Ops.   While denying all other allegations made in the complaint specifically, it has been submitted that there is no deficiency in services on the part of the Ops and  raised the preliminary objections that the complainant has not come to this Commission with clean hands; that the complaint is bad for non joinder and mis joinder of the necessary parties; that this Commission has no jurisdiction to decide the present complaint; that the complainant has no cause of action to file the present complaint and that the complainant is estopped by his own act and conduct from filing the present complaint.

4.             OP No.3 was duly served upon but failed to appear and contest the  present case. Therefore, OP No.3 was proceeded against ex parte vide order dated 28.8.2019.

5.             The complainant in support of his case has filed affidavit Ex.CW1/A and tendered documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-10 and closed his evidence.

6.             OP No.1 and 2 in support of their case have filed affidavit Ex.RW1/A and tendered documents Ex.R-1 and Ex.R-2 and closed their evidence.

7.             We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the material available on the case file.

8.             The learned counsel for the complainant while reiterating the averments made in the complaint has argued that the complainant  is having saving account bearing NO. 2549000100059076 with the OP No.3 and at the time of opening the saving account, the OP No.3. It is further argued that The complainant purchased insurance policy bearing No.35360831180100000213 dated  10.7.2018 from the OP No.1 and 2 through its agent namely Pardeep Kumar  for his vehicle No. HR-01AF-6781  for the premium of Rs.6,790/-  for the period 10.7.2018 to 9.07.2019. It is argued that the OP no.3 had transferred the premium amount from the account of the complainant in the account of OP No.1 and 2 regarding the premium of Rs.6790/- However, the total amount of Rs.13,580/- was deducted from the account of the complainant bearing No. 2549000100059076.  The complainant approached the Ops and requested to refund the amount of Rs.6790/- many a times personally and also through an application to the DM, Karnal on 14.09.2018 and the agent of Ops no.1 and 2 requested to look into the matter for the refund of Rs.6790/- but no action has been taken by the Ops despite   repeated requests and service of legal notice, which amounts to deficiency in services on the part of the Ops.

9.             On the other hand, learned counsel for OP No.1 and 2 while reiterating the submissions made in the written statement has argued that that answering Ops have received the premium amount of Rs.6790/-  for issuance of the policy from the Punjab National Bank in the Bank account of answering OP. No subsequent payment or second time payment has been received in the bank of answering OP from Punjab National Bank on 6.7.2018 for issuance of the said policy No. 35360831180100000213, so there is no deficiency in services on the part of the Ops.   While denying all other allegations made in the complaint specifically, it has been submitted that there is no deficiency in services on the part of the Ops and raised the preliminary objections that the complainant has not come to this Commission with clean hands; that the complaint is bad for non joinder and mis-joinder of the necessary parties.

10.            After hearing the learned counsel for the complainant and OP No.1 and 2 we see that in the statement of account  Ex.R-1 of the bank of OP –Insurance Co. amount of Rs.6790/- has been paid  to the bank of OP-Insurance Co. on 6.7.2018 only one time but the perusal of  statement of account-pass book of the complainant shows that the amount of Rs.6790/- has been deducted twice from the account of the complainant by OP No.3 on 6.7.2018. As per record this amount has not been received by the  bank OP No.1 and 2. The OP No.3 is the best person who could clear the position in the dispute  but the OP No.3 preferred to abstain it from the proceedings of this case and as such the OP No.3 was proceeded against e xparte vide order dated  28.08.2019. As the amount  of Rs.6790/- has been deducted from the account of the complainant on 6.7.2018 twice by the OP No.3 and as per record of the bank of OP N o.1 and 2, this amount of Rs.6790/- has  been paid to insurance company only one time, therefore, OP No.3  is liable to refund the amount of Rs.6790/- to the complainant and as such deficiency in services on the part of OP No.3 is established. Therefore, this complaint is liable to be accepted.

11.            In view of our above findings and observations, we accept the present complaint and direct the OP No.3 to refund the amount of Rs.6790/- to the complainant alongwith interest @ 6% per annum from the date of this order i.e. 11.01.2022 till its actual realization. The   OP No.3 shall also pay a sum of Rs.5000/- in lump sum as compensation for the mental harassment caused to the complainant and for the litigation expenses. The OP no.3 is further directed to make the compliance of this order within a period of thirty days from the date of this order, failing which the complainant shall be at liberty to initiate proceedings u/s 25/27 of the Consumer Protection Act. The complaint qua Op no.1 and 2 stands dismissed. Certified copy of this order be supplied to the parties concerned as per rules and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

 

Announced in the open Commission 

Dated: 11.01.2022.     

 

                                                                               President.

 

                                Member             Member.