Chandigarh

StateCommission

A/42/2019

Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Ltd. - Complainant(s)

Versus

Surekha Singla - Opp.Party(s)

Rajesh Verma Adv.

25 Mar 2019

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

U.T., CHANDIGARH

 

 

Appeal No.	:	42 of 2019
Date of Institution	:	05.03.2019
Date of Decision	:	25.03.2019

 

1.  Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Ltd., registered office G.E. Plaza, Airport Road, Yerwada, Pune – 411006 (India), through its Managing Director.

2.  Bajaj Allianz General Insurance ltd., Branch Office: SCO 329, 1^st Floor, Sector 9, Panchkula (Haryana) through its Branch Manager, through its authorized person and duly constituted attorney Sh. Jai Singh, Senior Executive (Legal) of the Appellants, SCO: 167-168-169, Sector 9, Chandigarh.

 

 …….Appellants/Opposite Parties No.1 & 2.

Versus

 

1.  Surekha Singla W/o Sh. D. K. Singla R/o H.no.2518, Sector 35-C, Chandigarh – 160036.

2.  Sh. D. K. Singla S/o Sh. Prem Chand, R/o H.no.2518, Sector 35-C, Chandigarh – 160036.

 

...Respondents/Complainants.

 

3.  Axis Bank, Corporate Office: Bombay Dyeing Mills Compound, Pandurang Budhkar Marg, Worli, Mumbai – 400025, through its Managing Director.

4.  Axis Bank, Branch Office: SCO 134-135, Sector 34-A, Chandigarh through its Branch Manager.

 

….Respondents/Opposite Parties No.3 & 4.

 

Appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection  Act, 1986 against  order dated 21.12.2018 passed by District   Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, U.T. Chandigarh  in Consumer Complaint No.698 of 2017.

 

BEFORE: JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH (RETD.), PRESIDENT.

                MRS. PADMA PANDEY, MEMBER.

                MR. RAJESH K. ARYA, MEMBER.

 

Argued by:

 

Sh. Rajesh Verma, Advocate for the appellants.

 

PER  RAJESH  K.  ARYA, MEMBER

                   The appellants/opposite parties No.1 & 2 have filed this appeal against order dated 21.12.2018 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, U.T., Chandigarh (in short ‘the Forum’ only), vide which, complaint bearing No.698 of 2017 filed by respondent No.1 & 2/complainant was partly allowed in the following manner:-

“10.     For the reasons recorded above, the present complaint of the Complainants deserves to succeed against the Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 and the same is partly allowed. The Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 are, jointly and severally, directed:-

[a]  To refund the unexpired insurance charges to the Complainants, along with interest @9% p.a. from 25.08.2016, till it is paid;

[b]  To pay Rs.10,000/- as compensation to the complainants for deficiency in service, unfair trade practice and harassment caused to them.

[c]  To also pay a sum of Rs.7,000/- to the complainants as litigation expenses. 

          The complaint against Opposite Parties No.3 & 4 fails and is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs. 

11.     The above said order shall be complied within 30 days of its receipt by the Opposite Parties No.1 & 2; thereafter, they shall be liable for an interest @12% per annum on the amount mentioned in sub-para [a] above from 25.08.2016, till it is paid. The compensation amount as per sub-para [b] above, shall carry interest @12% per annum from the date of institution of this complaint, till it is paid, apart from cost of litigation of Rs.7,000/-.” 

2.              Before the Forum, it was case of the complainants that on 10.01.2012, they availed a Housing Loan of Rs.99,85,727/- from Opposite Party No.4. As per its Policy, Opposite Party No.4 got the House/Property of the complainants insured for a period of 20 years from Opposite Party No.2 and charges Rs.42,885/- as insurance charges. The aforesaid housing loan from Opposite Party No.4 was ultimately adjusted by the complainants on 28.11.2013. The complainant thereafter requested the Opposite Parties by various letters/e-mails for refund of the un-expired amount of insurance premium paid by them in advance. It was only after expiry of more than 2½ years that Opposite Party No.2 refunded only an amount of Rs.24,259/- vide NEFT dated 25.08.2016. Accordingly, the complainants requested the Opposite Parties vide e-mails (Annexure C-8 to C-14) for refund of the balance amount but of no use. Hence, complaint was filed before the Forum.

3.             Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 in their reply, while admitting the factual matrix of the case, stated that the complainants had approached for the refund of their balance premium on 19.07.2016 after the period of 5 years. Accordingly, refund of Rs.22,515/- was made to the insured as per the terms and conditions of the policy. It was further stated that after refund of the premium, as per terms and conditions of the policy, the said policy was cancelled vide endorsement of cancellation made on the said policy. It was further stated that neither there was any deficiency, in rendering service, on the part of opposite parties No.1 & 2 nor they indulged into any unfair trade practice. The remaining averments, were denied, being wrong.

4.             Opposite Parties No.3 & 4 in their reply, while admitting the factual matrix of the case, stated that no cause of action had arisen against Opposite Parties No.3 & 4 since the amount was refunded by Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 and the policy was issued by Opposite Parties No.1 & 2. It was further stated that neither there was any deficiency, in rendering service, on the part of opposite parties No.3 & 4 nor they indulged into any unfair trade practice. The remaining averments, were denied, being wrong.

5.            The parties led evidence. The Forum, on analysis of pleadings of the parties, documents on record, and the arguments addressed, partly allowed the complaint as referred to above.

6.             The appellant has assailed the impugned order passed by the Forum on the ground that as per calculation made by the appellants, the appellants have proportionately deducted the premium until the policy was valid and effective and refunded the balance premium. It was submitted that the premium was retained for five years and balance premium was refunded. It was argued that the Forum erred in holding that the appellants were ever informed about the closure of the loan account within a period of two years and as per the record, the information regarding the closure of the loan amount was received by the appellants after five years i.e. on 19.07.2016. It was argued that nowhere in the complaint, it was stated that the appellants were informed about the closure of the loan account within two years and the communication and correspondence, if any, regarding closure of the loan amount was exchanged between the Bank and the complainant and Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Ltd. never received any such communication in any form either from the complainant or from the Bank. By raising the aforesaid argument, it was prayed that appeal be allowed and the impugned order passed by the Forum be set aside.

7.             After going through the evidence on record and submissions of the Counsel for the appellant/opposite parties No.1 & 2, we are of the opinion that the appeal is liable to be dismissed, at the preliminary stage, for the reasons to be recorded hereinafter. The arguments raised by the Counsel for the appellants/opposite parties No.1 & 2 have no force. It is on record that the loan availed by respondents No.1 & 2/complainants was insured for a period of 20 years after payment of premium of Rs.42,885/- by the complainants. No doubt, respondents No.1 & 2/complainants adjusted the loan account within 22 months and the appellants refunded Rs.24,259/- on 25.08.2016 towards the refund of the balance amount of unexpired insurance premium, after repeated requests. Qua the grouse of respondents No.1 & 2/complainants that the Opposite Parties refunded less amount of unexpired insurance premium, the Forum in Para 8 and of its order, rightly observed as under:-

“8.     Meticulous perusal of the entire record makes it abundantly clear that the Complainants discharged their liability within 22 months; whereas, they got the loan amount insured for a period of 20 years. Contradictory to the same, Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 in Para No.4 of their reply have contended that the Complainants themselves approached them for the refund of their balance premium on 19.07.2016 i.e. after the period of 05 years and accordingly, refund of Rs.22,515/- was made to them as per the terms and conditions of the policy. In support of their claim, one calculation has been given by Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 where Policy period has been mentioned as 05 years. Hence, Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 have taken a dual stand by stating the running period of the policy as 05 years; whereas, the true picture is otherwise.”

8.             It is settled principle of law that no party is allowed to take benefit of its own wrong. As rightly held by the Forum, it was the responsibility of the appellants/opposite parties No.1 and 2 to record the correct running time of the policy, in question, in their official records, when respondents No.1 & 2/complainants settled the loan amount within a period of 22 months. We are of the considered opinion that the act of the appellants/Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 in not taking appropriate steps at the appropriate time by closing the policy after the complete settlement by the complainants and then refunding less amount, certainly amounted to deficiency in rendering service on their part. We, therefore, affirm the view held by the Forum that respondents No.1 & 2/complainants certainly put to unprecedented physical and mental harassment ad were forced to indulge in unnecessary litigation. In our considered opinion, the Forum rightly directed the appellants/opposite parties No.1 & 2 to refund the unexpired insurance charges to respondents No.1 & 2/complainants alongwith interest @9% p.a. from 25.08.2016 till it is paid. It also rightly awarded Rs.10,000/- towards compensation for deficiency in service, unfair trade practice and harassment caused to them and Rs.7,000/- as litigation expenses.

9.             Hence, we are of the opinion that the order passed by the Forum, being based on the correct appreciation of evidence and law, on the point, does not suffer from any illegality or perversity.

10.           No other point was raised by the Counsel for the appellants/opposite parties No.1 & 2.

11.           For the reasons recorded above, this appeal being devoid of any merit, is dismissed in limine, with no order as to costs. The impugned order passed by the District Forum is upheld. Consequently, in view of dismissal of appeal, the application for condonation of delay in filing the instant appeal stands dismissed having been rendered infructuous.

12.           Certified copies of the order be sent to the parties free of charge.

13.           File be consigned to the Record Room after completion.

Pronounced

25.03.2019.

[JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH (RETD.)]

PRESIDENT

 

 

(PADMA PANDEY)

        MEMBER

 

 

(RAJESH  K. ARYA)

MEMBER

Ad