DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,<br /> BATHINDA (PUNJAB)<br /> <br /> CC No. 37 of 27-01-2010<br /> Decided on : 11-06-2010 <br /> <br /> Naresh Garg S/o Sh. Dewan Chand Garg R/o Namdev Marg, 40 Ft. Road, Corner Bhatti Road, Bathinda.<br /> .... Complainant<br /> Versus<br /> <br /> 1.Reliance Life Insurance Co. Ltd., Sukhdev Singh Ahluwalia Complex, Ground Floor, Hazi Rattan Chowk, Bathinda through its Branch Manager.<br /> 2.Reliance Life Insurance Co. Ltd.,Regd. Office : H Block, Ist Floor, Dirubhai Ambani Knowledge City, Navi Mumbai 400 710 through its Managing Director.<br /> 3.Insurance Regulatory Development Authority (I.R.D.A.) Parshirama Bhawan, 3rd Floor, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad 500 004, through its Chairman.<br /> ..... Opposite parties<br /> <br /> Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection<br /> Act, 1986.<br /> <br /> QUORUM <br /> <br /> Ms. Vikramjit Kaur Soni, President<br /> Dr. Phulinder Preet, Member <br /> Sh. Amarjeet Paul, Member<br /> <br /> For the Complainant : Sh. Naresh Garg, complainant in person.<br /> For the Opposite parties : Sh. Sanjay Goyal, counsel for opposite party Nos. 1 & 2.<br /> Opposite party No. 3 exparte. <br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> VIKRAMJIT KAUR SONI, PRESIDENT<br /> <br /> 1. In brief, the case of the complainant is that he had purchased one Life Insurance Policy No. 10471340 from opposite party Nos. 1 & 2 through opposite party No. 1 w.e.f. 20-01-2007 for 20 years after paying annual premium of Rs. 11,450/- to opposite party No. 1. He paid yearly premium of Rs. 11,450/- in January, 2008 and in January, 2009 in due time. In the month of January, opposite party Nos. 1 & 2 illegally demanded Rs. 11,586.47 as against the annual premium of Rs. 11,450/-. The complainant wrote letter dated 11-01-2010 and sent many e-mails to the opposite parties and raised protest against the enhancement of premium, but all in vain. The opposite party Nos. 1 & 2 against the rules and law charged Rs. 11590/- instead of Rs. 11,450/- from him inspite of protest. Hence, this complaint for issuing directions to the opposite parties to refund the premium charged in excess from him alongwith interest and pay him compensation and cost.<br /> 2. The opposite party Nos. 1 & 2 filed written version and submitted that complaint is not maintainable as insured has concealed material facts from this Fora because complainant was told that vide notification No. 23/2004 Govt. of India has rescinded the notification of Govt. of India regarding exemption of service tax.<br /> 3. Notice of this complaint was sent to opposite party No. 3, but despite service none appeared on its behalf and as such, exparte proceedings were taken against it. <br /> 4. The parties have led evidence in support of their respective pleadings. <br /> 5. Arguments heard and written submissions submitted by the parties perused. It is admitted case of both the parties that vide Notification No. 9/2002 dated 1st August, 2002 Ex. R-2 and as per Ex. C-11, service tax is not payable on the service provided by an insurer to a policy holder in relation to life insurance business. Stand of the opposite parties is that vide Notification No. 23/2004 dated 10th September, 2004 Ex. R-3, above said notification was rescinded and as such, service tax was rightly recovered from the complainant. For facility of reference salient portion of Notification Ex. R-3 is extracted below :<br /> “Notification No. 23/2004 – Service Tax<br /> G.S.R. (E) – In exercise of the powers conferred by section 93 of the Finance Act, 1994 (32 of 1994), the Central Government, being satisfied that it is necessary in the public interest so to do, hereby rescinds the notifications of the government of India in the Ministry of Finance (Department of Revenue), No. 4/99 – Service Tax, dated the 28th February, 1999 (G.S.R. 187 (E) dated the 28the February, 1999) and No. 9/2002 – Service Tax, dated the 1st August, 2002 (G.S.R. 537 (E) dated the 1st August, 2002) except as respects things done or omitted to be done before such rescission.” <br /> A perusal of above said notification shows that service tax on life insurance is still not leviable. Thus, it appears that the opposite parties have mis-interpreted the provisions of notification Ex. R-3. Hence, this complaint is accepted with no order as to cost and the opposite parties are directed to refund Rs. 140/- charged from the complainant in excess on account of service tax and pay him compensation for mental harassment to the tune of Rs. 500/- <br /> The compliance of this order be made within 45 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. A copy of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost and the file be consigned to record.<br /> Pronounced :<br /> 11-06-2010<br /> (Vikramjit Kaur Soni)<br /> President<br /> <br /> <br /> (Dr. Phulinder Preet)<br /> Member <br /> <br /> (Amarjeet Paul)<br /> *ik Member <br />