Punjab

Sangrur

CC/532/2017

Sethi Ram - Complainant(s)

Versus

SBI Life Insurance - Opp.Party(s)

Sh.Dhiraj Jindal

07 Feb 2018

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR.

 

                                                               

                                                Complaint No.    532

                                                Instituted on:      09.10.2017

                                                Decided on:       07.02.2018

 

Sethi Ram son of Sh. Mour Mall, resident of Ram Nagar, Ward No.4, Hanjra Marg, Sunam, District Sangrur (Punjab).

                                                        …Complainant

                                Versus

1.             SBI LIFE Insurance, Sangrur Branch, B-I/407 & 407/A-1, Banasar Bagh, Patiala Gate, Sangrur-148001 through its Branch Manager.

2.             SBI Life Insurance Company Ltd. 1^st Floor, Shop-cum-Bank-7, Above Allahabad Bank, Chhoti Baradari, Patiala-147001 through its Zonal Area Manager.

3.             State Bank of India, New Grain Market, Sunam, District Sangrur (earlier named as State Bank of Patiala), through its Branch Manager.

                                                        ..Opposite parties.

 

For the complainant    :       Shri Dhiraj Jindal, Adv.

For Opp.party No.1&2:       Shri Sachin Garg, Adv.

For Opp.Party No.3    :       Shri Gagandeep Bhagria, Adv.

 

 

Quorum:    Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

                Sarita Garg, Member

                Vinod Kumar Gulati, Member

 

Order by : Sukhpal Singh Gill, President.

1.             Shri Sethi Ram, complainant (referred to as complainant in short) has preferred the present complaint against the opposite parties (referred to as OPs in short) on the ground that the complainant availed the services of the OP number 3 by opening a saving bank account bearing number 55099559679 and the OP number 3 gave to the complainant an insurance policy namely SBI Life Swadhan Group Insurance Scheme of OP number 1 and 2 bearing number 86000055509 for the period of 10 years in which the complainant had to deposit 10 instalments of premium of Rs.1351/- each on yearly basis. Further case of the complainant is that upto 1.9.2010 the complainant deposited five premiums through cheque and thereafter on 9.9.2010 the OP automatically transferred Rs.1351/- from the account of the complainant to OP number 1 and 2.   The grievance of the complainant is that the OP number 2 has deducted 5^th instalment of premium from the account of the complainant two times i.e. on 1.9.2010 and 9.9.2010 and by this way the OPs have deducted an amount of Rs.1351/- in excess. Further case of the complainant is that the complainant came to know when the OPs deducted 11^th instalment of premium from the account of the complainant. Though the complainant approached the OPs for refund of the amount of Rs.1351/-, but all in vain. Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the Ops, the complainant has prayed that the Ops be directed to pay/refund to the complainant the amount of Rs.1351/- and further claimed compensation and litigation expenses.

 

2.             In reply filed by Ops number 1 and 2,  preliminary objections are taken up on the grounds that the complaint is time barred as cause of action arose to the complainant in the year 2010, that the premium is deducted on the first September of every year and that the complaint is not maintainable about the demand of Rs.1351/-. On merits, it is admitted that the complainant is insured with the OPs under the policy in question for the period of 10 years and the said cover matured on 1.9.2016 and the maturity amount has already been paid to the complainant through NEFT.  The other allegations levelled in the complaint have been denied.  Lastly, the Op number 1 and 2 has prayed for dismissal of the complaint with special costs.

 

3.             In reply filed by OP number 3, preliminary objections are taken up on the grounds that the complainant has no cause of action and locus standi to file the preset complaint and that the complainant has not come to the Forum with clean hands and that the complaint is vague and false one, which should be dismissed with special costs. On merits,  it is denied that the OP number 3 deducted the amount of Rs.1351/- automatically from the account of the complainant.  Lastly, the OP number 3 has prayed for dismissal of the complaint with special costs.

 

4.             The learned counsel for the complainant has produced Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-8 copies of documents and affidavit and closed evidence. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the OPs number 1  and 2 has produced Ex.OP1&2/1 to Ex.OP1&2/4 copies of documents and affidavits and closed evidence. The learned counsel for OP number 3 has produced Ex.OP3/1 to Ex.OP3/2 affidavit and documents and closed evidence.  

 

5.             We have carefully perused the complaint, version of the opposite parties and evidence produced on the file and also heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties. In our opinion, the complaint merits acceptance, for these reasons.

 

6.             It is an admitted fact between the parties that the complainant has taken an insurance policy as stated above which has already been matured and the payment has also been paid to the complainant through NEFT after its maturity.  Now, the grievance of the complainant is that since the complainant had to pay only 10 instalments of Rs.1351/- each to the Ops number 1 and 2 on account of yearly premium, but the OP number 1 & 2 has wrongly deducted the premium twice in the month of September, 2010 i.e. one instalment on 1.9.2010 and second instalment on 9.9.2010.  There is no explanation from the side of the Ops that why they deducted the amount of instalment twice. This fact is further supported by the copy of bank pass book Ex.C-7 that the OPs have deducted the amount of instalment of Rs.1351/- two times.  In the result, the complainant has successfully proved on record that the Ops deducted Rs.1351/- in excess from the complainant. As such, we feel that by not refunding the amount of Rs.1351/- despite demand of the complainant, the OPs are deficient in service.

 

 

7.             Accordingly, in view of our above discussion, we allow the complaint and direct the OPs number 1 and 2 to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.1351/- only. The Ops number 1 and 2 are further directed to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.5000/- on account of compensation as well as litigation expenses.

 

8.             This order of ours be complied with within a period of thirty days of its communication. A copy of this order be issued to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to records.

                        Pronounced.

                        February 7, 2018.

 

                                                        (Sukhpal Singh Gill)

                                                                President

 

                                                             

                                       

                                                                (Sarita Garg)

                                                                    Member

 

 

 

                                                        (Vinod Kumar Gulati)

                                                                    Member