1.                     The brief facts of the case of the complainant are that she subscribed for a policy i.e. “Cash Advantage” under OP.3 through OP.1 vide Application No.OS06276873 vide Policy No.20235245 and paid premium of Rs.30, 563/- on 26.8.2016 through the A/c of Abhay Ku. Mishra of Jeypore vides A/c. No.027001506657 with OP.2, who is one of her family friends as the complainant was not available at Jeypore.  It is submitted that even though the premium was paid on 26.8.2016, the OP.3 cancelled the policy for non receipt of premium against the policy and hence the complainant arranged and paid a sum of Rs.31, 126/- to OP.3 and a new policy bearing No.20275793 dt.12.9.2016 was issued in her favour.  The complainant approached OP.1 to get refund of her money and the OP stated that he has made all arrangements and the amount will be refunded soon but in vain even after 6 months.  Thus alleging unfair trade practice on the part of OP.3, she filed this case praying the Forum to direct the OP.3 to refund Rs.30, 563/- with interest @ 12% p.a. and to pay Rs.65, 000/- towards compensation and costs to the complainant.

2.                     The OP.1 in spite of valid notice did not prefer to participate in this proceeding in any manner.  The OP.2 filed counter contending that the Ops 1 & 3 are the Agent and Branch Manager of ICICI Prudential LIC policy who have entered into an agreement with the complainant for issue of policy and they have separate entity.  Further it is contended that the OP.3 and OP.2 are separate and distinct entities and any contractual agreement entered between the complainant and OP.3, shall be solely adjudicated between the said parties and the OP.2 has no role to play between them.  Thus denying any case of the complainant against it, the OP.2 has prayed to dismiss the case of the complainant.

3.                     The OP.3 also filed counter contending that it has settled the matter and has transferred Rs.30, 563/- to the complainant under SBI A/c No.10812157207 on 28.2.2017 towards cancellation of said Policy and the complainant has agreed to settle the case.

4.                     The complainant has filed certain documents along with affidavit in support of her case.  The OP No.3 also filed affidavit.  Heard from the complainant and OP.3 through their respective A/Rs and perused the materials available on record.

5.                     In this case, the complainant stated that she made a proposal Vide Application No.OSO6276873 for a policy and paid premium of Rs.30, 563/- on 26.8.2016 through the accounts of A. K. Mishra, one of her family friends and the Ops issued policy No.20235245 in favour of the complainant but later on the Ops cancelled the policy citing nonpayment of premium.  Further the complainant deposited Rs.31, 126/- and the Ops issued fresh policy No.20275793 dt.12.9.2016 but did not return the premium amount of Rs.30, 563/- deposited on 26.8.16 in spite of several requests even after passage of 6 months.  Due to such inaction of the Ops, she filed this case on 17.2.2017.

6.                     The OP No.3 in his counter stated that they have sent Rs.30, 563/- to the accounts of the complainant on 28.2.2017 towards cancellation of said policy.  The A/R for the complainant has also filed a memo dt.20.3.2017 stating that the OP has deposited a sum of Rs.30, 563/- in the accounts of the complainant.  At the time of hearing, the A/R for the complainant submitted that even after deposit of money, the Ops cancelled the first policy citing non deposit of premium.  Further the complainant has requested the Ops for return of amount relating to cancellation of policy but the Ops did not listen for which he has filed this case.  Repeated requests for return of money also went in vain.    Thus the A/R for the complainant justified the prayer for interest, compensation and costs.

7.                     The OP No.3 in this case has not stated anything as to why they cancelled the policy even after payment of premium.  Further their counter is silent about non return of premium amount for such a longer period.  The Ops also took 6 months time to return the amount that to without interest on the said amount.  After filing of this case, the Ops woke up and returned the amount.  Arbitrary retention of money of the complainant without any valid reason by Ops, in our opinion, amounts to unfair trade practice on their part.  Further for such in action of the Ops, the complainant must have suffered some mental agony and harassment for which is definitely entitled for some compensation.  Further the complainant has filed this case by engaging an advocate incurring some expenditure.  As such she is entitled for some costs.

8.                     Considering the interest part of the amount, compensation for mental agony and harassment and cost of this litigation, we feel a sum of Rs.10, 000/- in total which includes all in favour of the complainant will meet the ends of justice and the OP.3 is liable to pay the same to the complainant.

9.                     Hence ordered that the complaint petition is allowed in part and the OP No.3 is directed to pay Rs.10, 000/- towards interest, compensation and costs to the complainant within 30 days from the date of communication of this order.

(to dict.)