Jai Sen Chauhan filed a consumer case on 04 Mar 2015 against Reliance Life Ins. in the Shimla Consumer Court. The case no is 308/2012 and the judgment uploaded on 26 Mar 2015.
BEFORE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM SHIMLA (H.P.) Complaint No: 308/2012 Presented On: 18.10.2012 Decided On: 04.03.2015 Sh. Jai Sen Chauhan S/o Late Sh. Shama Nand, R/o House No. 50, Housing Board Colony, Sanjauli, Shimla (H.P)-171006. ….Complainant Versus Reliance Life Insurance Co. Ltd., A/8 Sector 1, Millenium Business Park, Mahape, Navi Mumbai-400705. Through Sh. Hareesh Kumar, Customer Care Executive, Reliance Life Insurance Co. Ltd., 2nd Floor, Rain Basera Building Khalini, Shimla-171002. .…Opposite party _______________________________________________________ Coram: Sh. K.S.Chandel, President Smt. Yogita Dutta, Member Sh. Subneet Singh Chauhan, Member. For the Complainant: Sh. Jai Sen Chauhan complainant in person For the Opposite party: Sh. Amit Kanwar, Adv. for the OP. O R D E R: K.S.Chandel (District Judge) President This complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 has been filed by the complainant Sh. Jai Sen Chauhan against Reliance Life Insurance Co. Ltd., through Sh. Hareesh Kumar, Customer Care Executive claiming deficiency in service as well as unfair trade practice by the OP. The complainant has claimed that on 30.3.2009 he applied for the Reliance Life Insurance Policy and submitted a cheque of Rs.10,000/- Annexure-I which was accepted by the OP as the cheque was withdrawn vide Annexures-II and III. The complainant has further claimed that the OP has sought medical certificate which was not disclosed by the agent of the OP and thereafter the complainant has sought refund of his amount of Rs.10,000/-, but the OP has failed to refund the money despite communication Annexure-IV,V and VI. Therefore, the complainant has claimed deficiency in service as well as unfair trade practice as the OP has failed to refund the amount of Rs10,000/- and has sought direction to the OP
to refund the amount of Rs. 10,000/- alongwith interest including compensation for harassment or any other relief. The complaint is duly supported with an affidavit of the complainant. 2. The OP in his reply has taken preliminary objections for maintainability as well as that there is no privity of contract between the parties and the complainant is not a consumer as the complainant had purchased the vehicle for commercial purpose. On merits, the OP has denied any deficiency in service as well as unfair trade practice as the complainant has not complied with the terms and conditions of the policy. The OP has claimed that as the mandatory requirements of the policy was not complied and the policy was cancelled and the draft for refund of amount of Rs.10,000/- was prepared and immediately sent to the complainant on his given address, but the same could not be delivered and was received back as unclaimed. The OP has further claimed that the complainant was asked to provide an identity proof and a cancelled cheque so that the money could be refunded to the complainant, but the complainant has failed to submit the same and the OP has sought dismissal of the complaint. 3. We have heard the complainant as well as ld. counsel for the OP and gone through the record of the case file carefully. 4. The OP has not disputed the amount Rs.10,000/- paid by the complainant for Life Insurance Policy as the same was claimed to be cancelled by the OP on failure to comply with the mandatory requirements and thereafter, the draft of amount of Rs.10,000/-was prepared and sent to the complainant on his given address, but the same could not be delivered. Therefore, it is established and admitted fact by pleading of the parties that the amount of Rs.10,000/-has not been refunded by the OP though the OP has claimed that the draft could not be delivered and thereafter the identity proof and cancelled cheque was sought from the complainant by the OP as there is contradiction to the claim of the OP as in the preliminary objection, the draft has been claimed to be prepared and sent to the complainant address whereas in the reply on merit in para nos. 3 and 4, the OP has sought cancelled cheque from the complainant including identity proof. Therefore, adverse inference is to be drawn against the OP. The OP has also taken preliminary objections that the complainant is not a consumer as the complainant has purchased the vehicle for the commercial purpose whereas in the present complaint the controversy involved to the personal insurance policy and not to the vehicle.
Therefore, in view of these facts when the OP cancelled the policy of the complainant and further claimed that the draft of the amount of Rs.10,000/- was prepared and sent on the given address, but the same could not be delivered and as such it amounts to deficiency in service as well unfair trade practice by the OP since Rs.10,000/- of the complainant has been retained by the OP. Therefore, the present complaint is allowed and the OP is directed to refund Rs.10,000/- to the complainant alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of complaint i.e 18.10.2012 till realization. The OP is further directed to pay compensation of Rs.5,000/- for harassment including litigation expenses. The OP is directed to pay this amount within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of cost as per rules. File after due completion, be consigned to record room. Announced on this the 4th day of March, 2015. (K.S.Chandel) President (Yogita Dutta) (Subneet S.Chauhan) /ss/ Member Member
[HON'BLE MRS. Yogita Dutta]
PRESIDING MEMBER
[HON'BLE MR. Subneet Singh Chauhan]
Member
Consumer Court Lawyer
Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.