PRESENT
SMT. ASHA SHETTY : PRESIDENT
SMT.LAVANYA M. RAI : MEMBER
SRI. ARUN KUMAR K. : MEMBER
COMPLAINT NO.116/2012
(Admitted on 21.4.2012)
U.Dinesh Shetty,
S/o Late Thimmappa Shetty,
Aged about 51 years,
R/at. “Sudhama”,
Church Road,
Ujire Village and P.O.
Belthangady Taluk. …….. COMPLAINANT
(Advocate for the Complainant: Sri K.B.Arasa.)
VERSUS
The Branch Manager,
Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Company Ltd.,
1st Floor, Thumbay Arcade,
Falnir Junction,
Mangalore. ……. OPPOSITE PARTY
(Advocate for Opposite Party: Sri.Anil Kumar K.)
***************
ORDER DELIVERED BY HON’BLE PRESIDENT
SMT. ASHA SHETTY:
I. 1. This complaint is filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act alleging deficiency in service as against the Opposite Party claiming certain reliefs.
The brief facts of the case are as under:
The complainant stated that, on 19.9.2008 he purchased a D.D. No.712184412 for a sum of Rs.10,000/- in the name of the Opposite party from Udane Branch and the said D.D. was sent to the Opposite party through one Mr.Ramdas and the opposite party encashed the said amount through their banker ING Vysya Bank Ltd., Mangalore.
It is stated that, even after eacashing the D.D. on 7.12.2008 the Opposite party sent a intimation to the complainant for lapse of the policy and again on 15.1.2009 sent another letter and asked the complainant to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- being the installment of the premium. Hence, on 10.2.2009 the complainant approached the opposite party and informed the above bank. The opposite party again on 31.1.2009 issued a letter and informed the complainant that the policy has been lapsed due to non-payment of premium on 21.9.2008. Hence on 9.3.2009 the complainant written a letter to the opposite party and informed the matter by enclosing by his statement of accounts. There is no response from the opposite party, again on 22.6.2009 complainant got issued a lawyer’s notice called upon the opposite party to issue receipt of Rs.10,000/- and there after the complainant lodged a complaint to the head of the opposite party and informed them to enquire the matter.
It is stated that, on 18.3.2011, the complainant received a hand written calculation statement with a cheque for Rs.2,500/- drawn on Axis Bank Ltd., Mangalore with cover from Roopa Shenoy, Bajaj Allianz, Mangalore and again on 1.4.2011 the complainant written a letter to the Head Office of the Opposite party. But recently the complainant learnt that after lapse of more than one year the opposite party credited Rs.10,000/- to the policy of the complainant through cheque dated 8.10.2009 for Rs. 10,000/- drawn on Oriental Bank of Commerce. It is stated that, the complainant at no point of time issued any cheque and he had issued a D.D. drawn on Vijaya Bank, Udane Branch. The Opposite party misused the said D.D. and credited the cheque later on as stated above. Due to this, there is difference in the policy amount and complainant has no mistake of him suffered financial loss. Upon that the opposite party issued a lapse of the policy notice and given mental tension and harassment to the complainant. Hence it is contended that opposite party committed deficiency in service and the complainant filed the above complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 (herein after referred to as ‘the Act’) seeking direction from this Forum to the Opposite Party for reimburse the loss incurred to the policy and along with compensation and cost of the proceedings.
II. 1. Version notice served to the Opposite Party by R.P.A.D. Opposite Party appeared through their counsel filed version stated that the complainants policy was a regular premium policy and complainant was under an obligation to pay the renewal premiums annually to keep the insurance policy alive and avail the benefits of the insurance policy. The complainant has failed and neglected to pay the renewal premiums and hence the policy issued to him came to be lapsed for non-payment of renewal premiums and rest of the allegations alleged in the complaint are denied by the Opposite party and stated that the D.D. Dated 19.9.2008 to the account of policy of the complainant was arbitrary and complainant not paid the regular premium amount for the year 2008 and hence opposite party denied the deficiency and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
III. 1. In support of the complaint, one Mr.U.Dinesh Shetty (CW1) – Complainant filed affidavit reiterating what has been stated in the complaint and got marked Ex C1 to C18. On behalf of Opposite Party one Mr.Harish Prabhu (RW-1) Branch Manager of Opposite Party filed counter affidavit and answered the interrogatories served on him.
In view of the above said facts, the points now that arise for our consideration in this case are as under:
- Whether the Complainant proves that the Opposite Party has committed deficiency in service?
- If so, whether the Complainant is entitled for the reliefs claimed?
- What order?
We have considered the notes/oral arguments submitted by the learned counsels and also considered the materials that was placed before this Forum and answer the points are as follows:
Point No.(i): Affirmative.
Point No.(ii) & (iii): As per the final order.
REASONS
IV. 1. POINTS NO. (i) TO (iii):
In the instant case, the facts which are admitted is that, the Complainant one Mr.U.Dinesh Shetty had obtained Bajaj Alliance Life Insurance policy from the Opposite Party under the plan “Bajaj Alliance Capital Unit Gain” bearing Policy No.0066184280 commencing from 21.9.2007 to 21.9.2027 for a sum assured sum of Rs.1,00,000/-. The premium installment fixed at Rs.10,000/- annually as per Ex.C1.
Now the points are in dispute between the parties before this FORA is that, the Complainant contended that as per the contract of the above said policy the Complainant has to pay the premium annually. Towards the second premium the Complainant drawn a D.D. for a sum of Rs.10,000/- on 19.9.2008 from Vijaya Bank, Udane branch in the name of the Opposite Party as per Ex.C2. The Opposite Party inturn encashed said amount through their banker ING Vysya Bank Ltd., K.S. Rao Road, Mangalore, but the Opposite Party inspite of receiving the said amount issued a notice on 15.1.2009 that the policy has been lapsed as per Ex.C4 and C5. It is contended that the act of the Opposite Party amounts to deficiency and thereby the Complainant suffered financial loss and also loss of bonus. Hence this complaint.
Opposite Party on the contrary contended that, there is no deficiency on their part and taken a contention that the policy has not been renewed and the same is lapsed.
On perusal of the oral as well as documentary evidence available on record, we find that, admittedly the Opposite Party issued a policy mentioned herein above. Under the said policy the Complainant agreed to pay the premium annually, the sum assured is of Rs.1,00,000/- and the policy was commenced from 21.9.2007 and cover end dated i.e. 21.9.2027. When that being so, the question of renewal does not arise because the Complainant policy is a Bajaj Alliance Capital Unit Gain Life Insurance Policy as per Ex.C1 and the Complainant admittedly drawn a D.D. for Rs.10,000/- on 19.9.2008 from Vijaya Bank, Udane Branch in the name of Opposite Party towards the second premium i.e. one day in advance as per Ex.C2. The said DD was encashed by the Opposite Party through ING Vysya Bank Ltd, K.S. Rao Road Branch, Mangalore i.e. the Banker of the Opposite Party. The certificate dated 17.1.2011 i.e. Ex. C3 issued by the Vijaya Bank for encashment of D.D. clearly reveals that Demand draft dated 19.9.2008 favouring Bajaj Alliance Life Insurance Co. Ltd., Mangalore issued by Complainant through Udane Branch has been paid to ING Vysya Bank Limited i.e. the Banker of the Opposite Party. But it is seen on record that, the Opposite Party i.e. Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Company Limited inspite of receiving the above said amount towards the 2nd premium issued a lapse intimation to the Complainant appears to be arbitrary and there is no locus-standi to issue the said notice to the Complainant by the Opposite Party. However, the evidence of the Opposite Party before the FORA, in their answer to the interrogatories admitted that the due date for the second premium was on 21.9.2008 and also admitted that on 19.9.2008 the Complainant drawn a D.D for a Rs.10,000/- towards the 2nd premium. However, we have noted that, the version filed by the Opposite Party is contrary to the evidence led by the Opposite Party i.e. RW-1 who has examined on behalf of them.
Further, we noted that, the D.D. dated 19.9.2008 is encashed by the Opposite Party on 3.11.2008 inspite of that they have issued a lapse intimation on 7.12.2008 and 15.1.2009 i.e. as per Ex.C4 and C5 and again the Complainant approached the Opposite Party and informed the Opposite Party that the Complainant paid Rs.10,000/- by way of D.D. even after receiving the intimation the Opposite Party once again issued another notice for lapse of the policy dated 31.1.2009 as per Ex.C6. The conduct of the Opposite Party in this case appears to be very strange and the contention raised by them is not believable. When the documentary proof produced by the Complainant clearly shows that the Complainant drawn a D.D. dated 19.9.2008 towards the 2nd premium the question of issuing lapse notice does not arise in this case.
However, on over all consideration of the case on hand, it is proved beyond doubt that the Opposite Party inspite of receiving a D.D of Rs.10,000/- drawn by the Complainant towards the second premium issued a lapsed notice one after the another and the Complainant gone up to lodging a complaint before the head office of the Opposite Party. Inspite of that the Opposite Party not stopped their high handed acts those are borne by records in this case. The negligence of the Opposite Party is writ large and the officials concerned are liable to pay adequate damages for the continuous lapse committed by them.
In the instant case, we observed that, because of the lapse on the part of the Opposite Party, the Complainant is unnecessarily harassed and put to inconvenience, he has been for no mistake dragged before this court of law by filing the above complaint and spent money apart from the above incident. By considering the above aspects, we are of the opinion that in a case of like this nature the Opposite Party i.e. Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Company Limited officials are liable to pay adequate damages to the Complainant and also liable to withdraw their lapse intimation and regularize the policy by considering the second premium paid on date.
In view of the above said reasons, we hold that, the act of the Opposite Party in this case amounts to deficiency of service as well as unfair trade practice. Therefore, we hereby directed the Opposite Party to pay a sum of Rs.25,000/- as damages to the Complainant towards harassment and torture to the Complainant and also pay Rs.2,000/- as cost of the litigation expenses.
Apart from the above, we also hereby directed the Opposite Party to withdraw the lapse notice and regularize the policy by considering the second premium on date and make available all the benefits and bonus to the Complainant under the policy. Compliance/payment shall be made within 30 days from the date of this order.
In the result, we pass the following:
ORDER
The complaint is allowed. The Opposite Party i.e. Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Company Limited represented by its Authorized Signatory/Branch Manager shall pay a sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty five thousand only) as damages to the Complainant and also Rs.2,000/- (Rupees Two thousand only) awarded as cost of the litigation expenses.
Apart from the above, we also hereby directed the Opposite Party to withdraw the lapse notice and regularize the policy by considering the second premium on date and made available to all the benefits and bonus under the policy to the Complainant. Compliance/payment shall be made within 30 days from the date of this order.
Copy of this order as per statutory requirements, be forward to the parties free of costs and file shall be consigned to record room.
(Page No.1 to 9 dictated to the Stenographer typed by him, revised and pronounced in the open court on this the 31st day of May 2013)
PRESIDENT MEMBER MEMBER
ANNEXURE
Witnesses examined on behalf of the Complainant:
CW1 – Mr.U.Dinesh Shetty – Complainant.
Documents produced on behalf of the Complainant:
Ex C1 – 21.9.2007: The 1st premium Receipt.
Ex C2 – 19.9.2008: Copy of the D.D. drawn on Vijaya Bank.
Ex C3 – 17.1.2011: Certificate issued by the Vijaya Bank.
Ex C4 – 7.12.2008: The lapse intimation issued by the O.P.
Ex C5 – 15.1.2009: The lapse intimation issued by the O.P.
Ex C6 – 31.1.2009: The lapse intimation issued by the O.P.
Ex C7 – 9.3.2009: Copy of the letter written by the complainant.
Ex C8 – 22.6.2009: Office copy of the lawyer’s notice.
Ex C9 – 24.6.2009: Postal Acknowledgment.
Ex C10 – 5.10.2009: Copy of the letter written by the complainant.
Ex C11 – 20.12.2010: Copy of the letter written by the complainant.
Ex C12 – 14.2.2011: Postal Receipt and endorsement.
Ex C13 – 18.3.2011: Postal cover of Smt.Roopa Shenoy of O.P. and hand written calculation sheet.
Ex C14 – 1.4.2011: Copy of the letter written by the complainant.
Ex C15 – 8.10.2009: Receipt issued by the O.P. for receipt of the amount drawn on Oriental Bank of Commerce.
Ex C16 – 13.6.2011: Copy of the letter written by the complainant to MRs. Roopa Shenoy.
Ex C17 –18.11.2011: Copy of the letter written by the complainant.
Ex C18 – 19.9.2009: Receipt given by the O.P. for receipt of Rs.10,000/- drawn on Vijaya Bank for 3rd installment.
Witnesses examined on behalf of the Opposite Party:
RW-1: Mr.Harish Prabhu, Branch Manager of Opposite party.
Documents produced on behalf of the Opposite Party:
- Nil -
Dated:31-05-2013 PRESIDENT
