Delhi

North East

CC/273/2016

RAVINDER KR. SINGH - Complainant(s)

Versus

P.N.B METLIFE INSURANCE CO. LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

22 Apr 2022

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION: NORTH-EAST

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

D.C. OFFICE COMPLEX, BUNKAR VIHAR, NAND NAGRI, DELHI-93

Complaint Case No. 273/16

CORAM:

Surinder Kumar Sharma, President

Anil Kumar Bamba, Member

In the matter of:

Shri Ravinder Kumar Singh

S/o Shri Ramesh Chand

R/o: A-79/3, Mukund Vihar

Karawal Nagar, Delhi-110094                                                       Complainant

1. PNB Metlife Insurance Co. Ltd.

Through Branch Manager

Plot No. 103/104, 2^nd Floor

Ocean Heights, Noida Sector 18

UP-201301

2. Punjab National Bank

Through Branch Manager

B-3, Near Navyoug Happy School

Karawal Nagar, Delhi-110094                                           Opposite Parties

ORDER

Surinder Kumar Sharma, President

             The Complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

Case of the Complainant

2.         Complainant has prayed for issuing direction to Opposite Parties claimed Rs. 2,00,000/- compensation for mental agony. It is also prayed by the Complainant to award Rs. 10,000/- on account of litigation charges.

3.         Complainant has attached copy of emails, copy of written complaints.

Case of Opposite Party No. 1

4.           The Opposite Party No. 1 contested the case and filed written statement to the complaint of the Complainant. It has raised the preliminary objection that the Complainant had applied for a policy on 28.11.16. On the basis of all the document provided in the proposal form, a policy bearing no. 20680773 stipulating for an annual premium of Rs. 5,588.03/- to be payable  for 15 years. It was also submitted by Opposite Party No. 1 that the policy was due on 29.11.15 and the Complainant submitted a cheque for an amount of Rs. 5,600/- towards the same. Further Opposite Party No. 1 submitted that Complainant alleged that he had paid the premium on 29.11.15 but same was not reflecting under his policy. It was submitted by Opposite Party No. 1 that cheque submitted by the Complainant for an amount of Rs. 5,600/- towards the renewal premium on 29.11.15 was not for his policy. The name was mis-match in the cheque. Therefore, Opposite Party No. 1 returned the premium through cheque bearing no. 000652530 on 04.09.16 through speed post vide airway bill number EM166403285IN and the same was showing delivered to Complainant on 07.09.16. Opposite Party No. 1 contacted Complainant vide email dated 06.10.16 for submitting the medical documents, so as to reinstated the policy of complainant. The Opposite Party No. 1 has prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.

Case of Opposite Party No. 2

5.           The Opposite Party No. 2 contested the case and filed written statement to the complaint of the Complainant. It has raised the preliminary objection that Opposite Party No. 1 i.e. PNB Metlife Ins. Co. Ltd. while Opposite Party No. 2 i.e. Punjab National Bank deeds with banking business. It was also submitted by the Opposite Party No. 2 that it is case of Insurance. Hence, Opposite Party No. 2 is not liable for the redressal of grievance of Complainant. Opposite Party No. 2 also submitted that allegation/averment made against Opposite Party No. 2.  

6.        The Complainant filed rejoinder to the written statement of the Opposite Parties wherein he has denied the preliminary objection raised by the Opposite Parties and he has reiterated the assertions made in the complaint.

Evidence of the Complainant

7.           The Complainant in support of his complaint filed his affidavit wherein he has supported the averments made in the complaint. He has relied upon the documents i.e. copy of emails, copy of written complaints.

Evidence of the Opposite Party No. 1

8. In order to prove its case Opposite Party No. 1 has filed affidavit of Shri Rajeev Sharma, S/o Shri Lekhram Sharma, Senior Manager of PNB Metife India Insurance Co. Ltd. registered office at Unit No. 701, 702, & 703, 7^th Floor, West Wing, Raheja Towers, 26/27, M.G. Road, Bangalore-560001. He has supported the case of Opposite Party No. 1 as mentioned in written statement. He has stated in his affidavit that amount of the cheque which was deposited by the Complainant could not be credited in the premium for his policy. As the name of the Complainant mentioned in the cheque did not match in the name of Complainant in his policy.

Evidence of the Opposite Party No. 2

9. In order to prove its case Opposite Party No. 2 has filed affidavit of Shri Vipin Kumar Nagpal S/o Shri Jagdish Chandra Nagpal, Senior Branch Manager Punjab National Bank, Karawal Nagar, Delhi-110094. 

Arguments and Conclusions

10.      We have heard the Learned Counsels for the parties and have perused the file. We have also perused the written argument filed by the parties.

11.      It is admitted fact that the Complainant has purchased a policy from Opposite Party No. 1. It is also admitted that the Complainant paid the premium of Rs. 5,600/- vide cheque. The case of the Complainant is that he has also issued cheque for the payment of premium of policy of his wife which was taken from Opposite Party No. 1 and the said cheque was encashed and the amount was credited in the premium of her policy. The case of the Complainant is that his cheque was encashed its amount was not applied towards the premium of his policy on the wrong assumption his name mentioned in the cheque did not match in the policy. It is important to note that the cheque issued by the Complainant for the payment of premium for policy of his wife was encashed and applied towards the premium of the policy of the wife. No reason has been assigned by the Opposite Party No. 1 if the cheque issued by the husband is encashed and applied towards the payment of premium of the policy of his wife. Then why the cheque issued by the person for payment of his policy is not applied towards the payment of the premium of his policy on the ground of mis-matching of the name of the Complainant in the cheque and in the insurance policy.

12.      The Complainant has given the cheque in question to the Opposite Party No. 1 and the same of enchased on 16.12.15 by the Opposite Party No. 1. But the said amount was not applied towards the premium of his policy. The Complainant took pains and persuades the matter for a long time and ultimately gave a cheque of RS. 5,600/- to the Complainant on 07.09.16. Therefore, it is clear that the Opposite Party No. 1 kept the money of the Complainant for a long time and did not apply the same towards the premium of his policy. The case of the Opposite Party No. 1 is that the name of the Complainant mis-match in the cheque and the policy. How the name was not matching, the Opposite Party No. 1 did not need any cogent evidence in this regard. During the said period the Opposite Party No. 1 did not inform the Complainant that his name was not matching in his cheque and policy.

13.      Therefore, in view of the above discussion we hold that there was deficiency of service on the part of Opposite Party No. 1 and there was no deficiency of service on the part of Opposite Party No. 2. We deem it proper to award compensation of Rs. 25,000/- to the Complainant to be paid by Opposite Party No. 1 on account of mental harassment and agony. The Opposite Party No. 1 shall also pay Rs. 2,500/- to the Complainant on account of litigation charges. The said amount shall be by the Opposite Party No. 1 to the Complainant along with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of filing the complaint and till the date of recovery of the said amount accordingly.

Copy of this order be given to the parties free of cost.

File be consigned to Record Room.

(Anil Kumar Bamba)                                              (Surinder Kumar Sharma)      

       (Member)                                                                (President)