CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KOTTAYAM.

Present

     Sri. Santhosh Kesavanath P. President

 

                                             Sri. K.N. Radhakrishnan, Member

 

CC No.166/10

 

Saturday, the 29^th day of January, 2011

 

Petitioner                                              : K.A. Joseph,

                                                              Kalathikunnel,

                                                               Puthenchantha PO,

                                                               Vakathanam, Kottayam.

 

                                                             Vs.

Opposite party                                     :   Branch Manager,

                                                                Peerless General Finance &

                                                                Investments Com. Ltd.,

                                                                Chempothara Building,

                                                                Pulimood Junction, M.C. Road,

                                                                Kottayam.

                                                                (Adv. Manish Jose)

 

                                                            ORDER

 

 

            The case of the complainant is as follows.

 

            He had taken a policy from the opposite party as No E.9400739 dtd 26/10/2004. The monthly premium amount of the policy was Rs. 500 and the maturity value is Rs. 34735/-. He had remitted the premium amount to the opposite party through cheque from his account in SBT Vakathanam branch. On 28/8/2009 the complainant entrusted cheque No. 395740 to the opposite party’s Kottayam Branch. The opposite party had collected the amount of Rs. 1004/- from the complainant’s account on 18-9-2009. While so on 30-9-2009 we approached the opposite party for remitting the 60^th installment premium of his policy. Then the opposite party told that the 59^th installment was not remitted by the complainant. Hence the opposite party submits that they could not accept the 60^th installment. There was clear deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. The complainant was lost of Rs.3673/- due to the negligent act of the opposite party. Hence this complaint.

            The notices were served with the opposite party. They appeared and filed their version contending as follows. The opposite party carrying business as per the guideline of the RBI. The complaint is not maintainable either in law or on facts. The complainant joined the deposit scheme of the opposite party and the opposite party issue certificate No.E.9400730 dtd 26/10/2004 under Table 59. In the certificate it was clearly mentioned as to when monthly installment were due and payable. From the certificate if appeared that the last monthly installment was due and payable on 26-9-2009 and the date of maturity was on 26-10-2009. The complainant had sufficient time to pay the last installment we did not pay the same and the opposite party had rightly paid the paid up maturity value of certificate No.E. 9400730 Rs. 31,062/- amounting to the complainant. Hence the alleged less payment maturity value of the certificate in question and /or alleged demand for payment of the balance amount of Rs.3,673/- towards full maturity of the same is baseless. There was no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. Hence the complaint may be dismissed with costs.

            The complainant was examined as PW1 and the documents which are marked as Exhibits A1 to A4. The opposite party filed proof affidavit and documents which are marked as Exhibits B1 to B4.

            Heard both sides. We have gone through the complaint, version, documents and evidences of both sides. The case of the complainant is that the opposite party has not accepted the last installment premium amount without any sufficient reasons. Accordingly he has sustained a loss of Rs. 3673/-. Due to the negligent act of the opposite party. The opposite party has taken a contention that the complainant was not remitted one installment premium. Accordingly he was not entitled to get the entire amount as per the policy. From the available evidence and documents if can be seen that the complainant was not remitted one installment premium. Admittedly the complainant had remitted the premium through cheque from his account. The specific case of the complainant is that he was ready and willing to remit the last installment premium.  The complainant submits that the opposite party purposefully not receiving the last installment premium. The complainant has approached the opposite party sever4al times to remit the last premium. But the opposite party has not willing to accept the premium amount. Moreover the opposite party has not adduced any evidence to show that they have intimated the complainant and there after also he was not remitted the premium. Hence we have no reasons to dis-believe the case of the complainant. So we are of the opinion that the case of the complainant is to be allowed.

            In the result the complaint is allowed as follows..1) We direct the opposite party to pay the balance amount of Rs. 3673/- to the complainant and pay Rs. 1500/- as costs of these proceedings. Provided the complainant shall remit the disputed installment premium ie Rs.500/- to the opposite party. The order shall be complied with within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The order is not complied within one month the amount will carry interest @10% per annum from the date of order till payment.

 

                 Sri. K.N. Radhakrishnan, Member               Sd/-

                                   

    Sri. Santhosh Kesavanath P. President          Sd/-

 

Ext.A1-is the payment details.

Ext.A2-is the copy of statement of account

Ext.A3-is the letter from Service co-op.Bank Vakathanam

Ext.A4-is the copy of letter dtd 11/11/2009

Ext.B1-Peerless Flexi life saving plan(Table-59)

Ext.B2-is the copy of collection details

Ext.B3 is the copy of letter dtd 20-4-20120.

 

By Order,

 

 

Senior Superintendent.