Chandigarh

StateCommission

A/80/2021

Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Company Ltd. - Complainant(s)

Versus

Rajesh Garg - Opp.Party(s)

S.C. Thatai, Nitin Thatai & Rupali Adv.

28 Feb 2022

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

U.T., CHANDIGARH

 

Appeal No.	:	80 of 2021
Date of Institution	:	07.10.2021
Date of Decision	:	28.02.2022

 

Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Co. Ltd. , SCO 215-217, Sector-34-A, Chandigarh.

Presently filed through Sh. Amit Khanna, Manager-legal & complaiance, Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Co. Ltd., SCO Nos.215-216-217, 4^th Floor, Sector 34-A, Chandigarh – 160022.

…..Appellant/Opposite Party.

VERSUS

 

Sh. Rajesh Garg, Age 53 years, S/o Late Sh. M. L. Garg R/ H.No.2070, Sector 21-C, Chandigarh.

…..Respondent/Complainant.

Appeal under Section 41 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

PRESENT: (THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING):

Sh. Nitin Thatai, Advocate for the appellant.

Sh. Rajesh Garg, Sr. Advocate (respondent in person).

 

Appeal No.	:	94 of 2021
Date of Institution	:	28.10.2021
Date of Decision	:	28.02.2022

 

Sh. Rajesh Garg, Age 53 years, S/o Late Sh. M. L. Garg R/ H.No.2070, Sector 21-C, Chandigarh.

…..Appellant/Complainant.

VERSUS

 

Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Company Limited, #SCO 215-217, Sector-34-A, Chandigarh.

….Respondent/Opposite Party.

 

Appeal under Section 41 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

 

BEFORE:   JUSTICE RAJ SHEKHAR ATTRI, PRESIDENT.

                MRS.PADMA PANDEY, MEMBER

                MR. RAJESH K. ARYA, MEMBER.

 

PRESENT: (THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING):

Sh. Rajesh Garg, Sr. Advocate (appellant in person).

Sh. Nitin Thatai, Advocate for the respondent.

 

RAJESH  K. ARYA, MEMBER 

                   Vide this common order, we are disposing of two appeals, one bearing No.80 of 2021 filed by the opposite party – Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Co. Ltd. and the other bearing No.94 of 2021 filed by the complainant – Sh. Rajesh Garg, against order dated 11.06.2021 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I, U.T., Chandigarh (in short ‘District Commission’) in consumer complaint No.163 of 2020 vide which, the said complaint was party allowed and the opposite party – Bajaj Allianze Life Insurance Co. Ltd. was  directed to (i) pay the amount of Rs.59,095/- to the complainant (Sh. Rajesh Garg) besides (ii) payment of Rs.15,000/- towards compensation and (iii) Rs.10,000/- as litigation expenses. The order was to be complied with within a period of one month from the date of receipt of its certified copy failing which the opposite party has been held liable to pay  interest @12% p.a. on the amounts mentioned at Sr. No.(i) & (ii) besides paying litigation expenses mentioned at Sr. No.(iii) above.

2.                Briefly stated the case of the complainant, namely, Sh. Rajesh Garg, before the District Commission was that he had taken a Single Premium Policy from the Opposite Party on payment of  Rs.1,00,000/- on 02.04.2010, which was to mature on 28.03.2020. It was stated that on maturity,  the complainant was entitled to at least 170% of the unit price payable on 28.03.2020. It was further stated that neither the opposite party responded at the time of maturity nor credit of the aforesaid amount was given by the opposite party by the maturity date. It was further stated that the complainant escalated his grievance with the opposite party vide e-mail and whatsapp but to no avail. On the other hand, in its reply, the opposite party (Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Co. Ltd.) pleaded that the complainant was issued Bajaj Allianz Shield Plus Policy (Unit Linked Plan) on 02.04.2010 and the term of the Policy was 10 years. It was further pleaded that it was a Single Premium Policy and the complainant paid a single premium of Rs.1,00,000/-. It was further pleaded that the said Policy matured in March, 2020 and since, it was a Unit Linked Policy, the maturity amount was calculated as per the stipulations in the Policy and a Cheque of Rs.1,55,460/- dated 31.03.2020 was prepared to be sent to the complainant, but the same could not be delivered to the Complainant owing to country vide lockdown due to Covid-19 and the  said cheque got stale. It was further pleaded that a fresh maturity cheque was dispatched to the complainant, which he received on 13.08.2020

3.                In its appeal bearing No.80 of 2021, the opposite party (Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Co. Ltd.) has stated that the District Commission failed to appreciate that the contents of the proposal/application dated 29.03.2010, which were read and explained to the complainant and after understanding all the terms and conditions of the policy, the proposal form was signed by the life assured. It has further been stated that since the policy was a unit linked policy, therefore, the amount was calculated as per the stipulations in the policy. It has further been stated that since the Country was under lockdown from 22.03.2020 till May 2020 and there was no business happening in those testing times and the maturity cheque earlier prepared could not be delivered to the complainant. It has further been stated that the complainant was asked to furnish his Bank account details, which he did not furnish. It has further been stated that higher value is given to the complainant and moreover, the guarantee was of the unit price and not the number of units, which could fluctuate according to the market.

4.                In appeal bearing No.94 of 2021, which has been filed by the complainant (Sh. Rajesh Garg) seeking enhancement in the award, it has been stated that the District Commission has gravely erred in only partly allowing the complaint and failed to notice that the complainant was made the maturity amount of the policy only after, he approached the Commission. It has further been stated that inspite of lapse of maturity date, there was no intimation or credit of the maturity amount to his account, compelling him to write email to customer care on 25.04.2020, Annexure C-2, which was not replied by the opposite party. It has further been stated that the version of the opposite party that the due to Covid-19, postal service by India Post were not in operational. It has further been stated that as per Annexure C-4, newspaper clipping, the postal services by India Post continued uninterrupted even during Lockdown. It has further been stated that the offices of the opposite parties were working for all purposes even after 22.03.2020, especially for remittance to be made. It has further been stated the cheque was prepared and issued only after notice of the complaint was issued to the opposite party and it appeared before the District Commission. It has further been stated that the brazen falsity of the opposite party that the complainant did not furnish the bank account details is proved from chat at pages 33 and 34 of the complaint that his bank account details already exist in the company records especially at page 16 of the booklet issued by the complainant itself and appended with the complaint as Annexure C-1. It has further been stated that the Bank account details were supplied to the opposite party at the time of issuance of the policy as is clear from Annexure  P-2 appended by the opposite party itself. It has further been stated that there is no presumption in law that the Bank account is operative or is valid only for a limited period and that the same become defunct after passage of a certain period to the lining and as per the whims of the opposite party.

5.                After hearing the both the parties and going through the record of the case and the written arguments very carefully, we are of the considered opinion that appeal bearing No.80 of 2021 filed by the opposite party (Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Co. Ltd.) is liable to be dismissed and the cross appeal bearing No.94 of 2021 filed by the complainant (Sh. Rajesh Garg) is liable to be allowed for the reasons to be recorded hereinafter. The contention raised by the  opposite party that the cheque dated 31.03.2020  was prepared but could not be sent to the complainant due to lockdown in the Country on account of spread of pandemic Covid-19, it may be stated here that this contention cannot be accepted being totally vague and unsustainable, looking at Annexure C-4, newspaper clipping i.e. Ajith Athrady, DHNS, New Delhi dated 26.03.2020, wherein it was stated that “The Government has said that all post offices across the Country will remain open during the lockdown period and asked all postal services employees to join duty without fail. The Department of Posts had written to all circle offices to ensure that all postal services run without any interruption during the lockdown....”. Not only this, bare perusal of Proposal Form, Annexure OP-2, establishes on record that the Bank account details of the complainant were very much available with the opposite party as the same were duly provided in the said proposal form. Thus, the opposite party could very well sent the alleged cheque to the complainant or credit the amount in his account, which was already available in the account of the opposite , which it did not do and rather made the complainant to wait till 13.08.2020, which no fault of his, on which date, he received a fresh cheque, that too through post. Therefore, in our concerted view, by not sending the cheque, in question, to the complainant will in time on the date of maturity, the opposite party indulged into unfair trade practice.

6.                So far as the contention raised that since the policy was a unit linked policy, therefore, the amount was calculated as per the stipulations in the policy, we are not in agreement with this argument, simply for the reason that in the terms and conditions of the Policy, in question, Annexure C-1, at Page 21 of the District Commission record, it was clearly stipulated that “The minimum Unit Price at Maturity Date, under Shield Plus Fund I, is guaranteed to be 170% of the Unit Price as on date of allocation of units to unit account under a Policy.” We are in agreement with the view held by the District Commission that the opposite party failed to give any justification or basis for reduction of the number of units from 9865.6675 at the time of allocation till the time of maturity and the complainant was rightly held entitled to 2,14,555/- (9865.6675 [No. of Units at the time of allocation] x 21.7477 [NAV at the time of maturity]). Even there is no mention in the policy, in question, that number of units could be decreased. However, by doing so, the opposite party was deficient in rendering service and also indulged into unfair trade practice.

7.                Now coming to the enhancement in the award passed by the District Commission, as sought by the complainant, in his appeal bearing No.94 of 2021, we are of the considered opinion that on account of aforesaid deficiency in rendering service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite party, the complainant should have been adequately compensated seeking the extent of harassment and mental agony, which he suffered, when there was no fault of his. The District Commission erred in not awarding any interest on the total amount of Rs.2,14,555/-, for which the complainant was entitled to. In our view, the ends of justice would be met, if  interest @9% p.a. is granted to the complainant on the aforesaid amount of Rs.2,14,555/-. To this extent, the impugned order needs to be modified.

8.                For the reasons recorded above, the appeal bearing No.80 of 2021 filed by the opposite party (Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Co. Ltd.) is dismissed with no order as to cost. However, appeal bearing No.94 of 2021 filed by the complainant (Sh. Rajesh Garg) is allowed and the impugned order is modified as under:-

                   The Opposite Party (Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Co. Ltd.) is directed as under:-

1. To pay the balance amount of Rs.59,095/- to the complainant alongwith interest @9% per annum w.e.f. 29.03.2020 till realisation, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order, failing which, it (Opposite Party) shall be liable to pay interest @12% p.a. on the aforesaid amount, from the date of filing the complaint till actual  realisation.
2. To pay interest @9% p.a., on the amount of Rs.1,55,460/- already received by the complainant, for the period from 29.03.2020 to 13.08.2020, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order, failing which, it (Opposite Party) shall be liable to pay interest @12% p.a., instead of 9% p.a., till actual  realisation.

(iii)     To pay Rs.15,000/- as compensation to the         complainant for the deficiency in service, unfair trade      practice and harassment caused to him, within a      period of one month from the date of receipt of    certified copy of this order, failing which, it (Opposite          Party) shall be liable to pay interest @12% p.a. on the        aforesaid amount, from the date of filing the complaint    till actual realisation.

(iii)     To also pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- to the complainant as litigation expenses, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of its certified copy of this order. 

9.                All pending applications in both the appeals stand disposed of accordingly.

10.              Certified copy of this order be placed in the file of appeal No.94 of 2021 titled ‘Sh. Rajesh Garg Vs. Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Company Ltd.’.

11.              Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge.

12.              File be consigned to Record Room after completion.

Pronounced

28.02.2022.

[RAJ SHEKHAR ATTRI]

PRESIDENT

 

 

(PADMA PANDEY)

MEMBER

 

 

(RAJESH K. ARYA)

MEMBER

Ad