The fact of the case of the complainant in a nutshell is that , the complainant woman was policy holder under OP. She had three policies. She surrendered the three policies on 5.12.2014. The surrender value of those three policies was told to the complainant for the three policies i.e. for the policy no. 17155918 surrender value was fixed at Rs.1,51,917.16p, policy no.17375508 surrender value was fixed at Rs.1,44, 653.28p and policy no.17374898 surrender value was fixed at Rs.1,44,653.28p. The OP did not pay the surrender value within 15
days to the complainant. Later on OP paid Rs.1,46,349.43 p , Rs.1,39,351.32p and Rs.1,39,351.32 p for those policies respectively in the account of the complainant . Complainant’s further case is that complainant got less amount of Rs.16,172.11p than her surrender value.
OP has contested the case by filing Written version denying inter alia all material allegations of the case contending that the Op did not pay to the complainant the amount which has been deducted by the Income Tax authority. They have deducted for the three policies Rs.2844/- for policy no.17374897, Rs.2844/- for policy no. 17375508, Rs.2987/- for policy no.17155918. So, as per Op’s version as written in para-wise reply in para 1 is Rs.2844/-, 2844/- and 29.87/- totaling Rs.8675/-.
Complainant has filed Evidence in chief , Written Notes of argument. OP has filed Evidence in affidavit and form 16.
POINT FOR DETERMINATION
- Whether the complainant is a consumer ?
- Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the oP ?
- Whether the complainant is entitled to get relief as prayed for ?
DECISION WITH REASONS :
All the points are taken up together for the sake of convenience and brevity of discussion.
It is admitted position that complainant had three policies under the opposite party . For her need complainant wanted prematured value of those value. Accordingly, the oP told to give the premature value of those three policies. The amount of the three policies is 1) Rs.1,51,917.96p, 2) Rs.1,44,653.28p and 3) 1,44,653.28p . But the oP after some days returned those premature value of policies but paid less Rs.16,172/-. On this point Op is stated that Rs.2844/-, Rs.2844/- and Rs.2987/- totaling Rs. 8675/- has been deducted by the Income Tax Dept. who issued 16A form showing deduction of Rs.8675/- and the said money was deposited with the Central Govt. There is no whisper of Op regarding less payment of Rs.16,172/- - Rs.8675/- i.e. Rs.7497/- which the complainant is entitled to get. Accordingly, apart from the TDS amount the complainant is entitled to get the rest amount i.e. Rs.7497/-.
Accordingly, after deliberation of material on records over the both side case we are of opinion that the complainant’s case succeeds and complainant’s case is partly allowed. Complainant is entitled to get rest amount after TDS deduction and complainant is entitled to get compensation for mental agony and litigation cost. Hence it is –
ORDERED
That the CC no. 23 of 2015 be and the same is allowed on contest. The Op is directed to pay Rs.7,497/- to the complainant . The Op is also directed to pay Rs.5,000/- to the complainant for her mental agony and pain. The OP is also directed to pay Rs.5,000/- towards litigation cost i.e. totaling Rs.17,497/- to the complainant within 30 days from the date of this order , failing which 10% interest will be accrued from date of this order till the full realisation.
Complainant is at liberty to approach the Income Tax Authorities to get their Return of the deducted amount , if they are eligible for get Return of the deducted amount.
Let a copy of this order be handed over to the parties free of cost.
