Kerala

StateCommission

A/16/839

AVIVA LIFE INSURANCE - Complainant(s)

Versus

PAUL JOSHUA - Opp.Party(s)

SAJI ISSAC

17 Dec 2019

ORDER

KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL

COMMISSION  VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

APPEAL No.839/2016

    JUDGMENT DATED:17.12.2019

 

PRESENT : 

HON’BLE JUSTICE K. SURENDRA MOHAN          : PRESIDENT

SMT. BEENAKUMARI.A                                            : MEMBER

 

1. Aviva Life Insurance Co. Ltd.,

Rep. by ChiefOperating Officer,

Aviva Life Insurance, 2^nd floor,

Prakashdeep Building,

7- Tolstoy Marg, New Delhi-110 001.

: APPELLANTS

 

2. The Branch Manager,

Aviva Life Insurance, 2^nd floor,

Kizhakkethil Arcade, Nagampadam,

Kottayam-686 001.

 

(By Adv: Sri. Saji Isaac K.J)

 

1.  

 

Paul Joshua,

Ancheril House, Devalokam P.O,: RESPONDENT

Kottayam-686 638, Kerala.

 

JUDGMENT

HON’BLE JUSTICE  K. SURENDRA MOHAN : PRESIDENT

The opposite parties in CC.336/2015 of the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kottayam (hereinafter referred to as the District Forum for short) are in appeal against the final order dated:29.07.2016 allowing the complaint.  According to the opposite parties they were not afforded adequate opportunity to place and prove their case, by the District Forum.

2.      The respondent had filed the complaint seeking return of an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- that he had paid as premium in respect of an insurance policy bearing No.ALS2647293.  According to him, he was working as a Purchase Manager in Rasal Khaima.  In July 2009, when he had come on leave to his native place, the 2^nd appellant had persuaded him to join an insurance policy.  His case is that, he was made to believe that he would have to pay only three instalments of Rs.1,00,000/- each.  According to him he paid the premium for 2009, 2010 and 2011 respectively, totalling an amount of Rs.3,00,000/-.  In the month of July 2015 when the respondent approached the 2^nd appellant for the return of his money he was informed that the policy had lapsed.  The 2^nd opposite party told him that he was entitled to receive only an amount of Rs.1,00,484/-.  His further enquiries revealed that the policy was for 15 years and that he had to pay premium at the rate of Rs.1,00,000/- every year for 15 years.

3.      The respondent alleged that he had joined the insurance policy in the belief that its period was only for three years and that, he had to pay only a total amount of Rs.3,00,000/-.  He also alleged that the signature in the policy certificate was not the same, but that it was fabricated.  The respondent therefore claimed return of the amount of Rs.3,00,000/- paid by him with interest thereon at the rate of 10% per annum and a compensation of Rs.1,00,000/-.

4.      According to the appellants they had received notice, come to the District Forum and had entered appearance but their version was filed beyond the period of 45 days stipulated by law.  They had therefore sought for condonation of the delay by filing a petition to receive their version.  According to them no orders have been passed on the said petition.  Instead the District Forum has proceeded to consider the complaint on the assumption that no version was filed by the opposite parties.  The said procedure has caused gave injustice, according to the counsel for the appellants.  It is further pointed out that the complaint filed in 2015 was barred by limitation but the said fact has not been taken into consideration by the District Forum.  The learned counsel for the appellants places reliance on the terms of the insurance policy, which the respondent had accepted, to contend that the amounts directed to be paid by the District Forum were neither due, nor payable to the respondent.  On the above grounds, it is contended that a fresh and proper consideration of the complaint by the District Forum is necessary, after permitting the appellants to place and prove their case.

5.      Though the respondent has received notice in this appeal there is no appearance for him.  In view of the above, we heard the counsel for the appellants in detail.  Having given our anxious consideration to the contentions of the appellants, we are of the view that the District Forum ought to have considered the version filed by the 2^nd appellant.  We notice from the records that, the appellants had filed their version along with a petition to receive the same.  They are also seen to have raised the question of maintainability of the complaint by filing a separate petition.   No orders have been passed by the District Forum on the above petitions.  Instead, the District Forum has proceeded in the matter as though no version had been filed by the appellants.  In fact the District Forum has not passed any orders, even on a petition filed by the appellants to reopen the evidence in this case.  It is therefore necessary that the District Forum takes a fresh decision in the matter, after giving an opportunity to the appellants to adduce evidence in support of their case in the version filed by them.  However, such an opportunity can be granted only on terms.

In the result this appeal is allowed as follows:-

1. The order dated 29.07.2016 of the CDRF, Kottayam in CC.336/15 is set aside on condition that an amount of Rs.10,000/- is paid as costs to the respondent.  The amount of costs shall be received by the respondent by submitting a proper application to this Commission, from the amount of Rs.25,000/- deposited in this case by the appellants at the time of filing this appeal.  The balance amount shall be returned to the appellants on proper application.
2. The District Forum, Kottayam shall consider CC.336/15 afresh and shall dispose of the same in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible after giving opportunity to the appellants to adduce evidence in support of the version filed by them.  The petition to receive the version is allowed and the version is received, for the above purpose. 
3. Send back the Lower Court Records to the District Forum, Kottayam immediately.

 

JUSTICE K. SURENDRA MOHAN : PRESIDENT

 

 

BEENAKUMARI.A : MEMBER

VL.