BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM RAICHUR.
COMPLAINT. DCFR NO. 84/11 & 85/11.
THIS THE 18th DAY OF APRIL 2012.
P R E S E N T
1. Sri. Pampapathi B.sc.B.Lib. LLB PRESIDENT.
2. Sri. Gururaj, B.com.LLB. (Spl) MEMBER.
3. Smt. Pratibha Rani Hiremath,M.A. (Sanskrit) MEMBER
COMPLAINANT :- Nagaredeppa S/o. Basangouda, At Post: CSF:
[In C.C NO. 84/11] Camp, Tq. Sindhanoor, Dist: Raichur.
[In C.C NO.85/11] :- Kanakappa S/o. Kariyappa, At Post: CSF Camp, Tq.
Sindhanoor, Dist: Raichur.
//VERSUS//
COMMON OPPOSIE:- The Branch Manager, Bajaj Allianz Sindhanur, Sri.
Laxmi Complex, Opp: Satkart Hotel, Main Road,
Next to ICICI Bank, Sindhanur, Dist:Raichur.
CLAIM :- For to direct the opposite to pay the deposit amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- along with interest, cost and to award an amount of Rs. 20,000/- towards mental torture & to direct the Insurance Company to pay the deposit amount of Rs. 75,000/- along with interest and to award an amount of Rs. 10,000/- towards mental torture.
Date of institution.
[In C.C NO. 84/11 & 85/11] :- 19-11-11.
Notice served on .
[In C.C NO. 84/11 & 85/11 :- 0512-11.
Date of disposal :- 18-04-12
Complainant represented by In Person.
Opposite represented by Sri. Avaneesh Taranath, Advocate.
---
These cases coming for final disposal before us, the Forum on considering the entire material and evidence placed on record by the parties passed the following.
COMMON JUDGEMENT
By Sri. Pampapathi President:-
C.C. No. 84/11 is the complaint filed by the complainant Nagaredappa against the Opposite Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Company of India Ltd., Sindhanoor Branch U/sec. 12 of Consumer Protection Act for to direct the opposite to pay the deposit amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- along with interest, cost and to award an amount of Rs. 20,000/- towards mental torture.
C.C. No. 85/11 is the complaint filed by the complainant Kanakappa against the same Insurance Company U/sec. 12 of Consumer Protection Act for to direct the Insurance Company to pay the deposit amount of Rs. 75,000/- along with interest and to award an amount of Rs. 10,000/- towards mental torture.
2. The brief facts of the complainant’s case in C.C. No.84/11 are that, he subscribed Insurance Policy bearing No. 0082405191 with commencement of risk from 01-02-2008 upto 10 years. He had deposited an amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- towards single premium of the said policy. After one year he received premium notice for depositing another 50,000/- for two years premiums. Accordingly, he paid an amount of Rs. 50,000/- on 29-09-2010 he received medical checkup intimation from the company on 13-10-2010, after medical checkup Insurance Company refunded amount of Rs. 50,000/- only. But refuse to pay the initial deposit amount of first premium. He requested several times in oral as well as in writing, but opposite shown its negligence in making payment, as such, he filed this complaint among other grounds.
3. The brief facts of the complainant case in C.C. No. 85/11 are that, he subscribed Insurance Policy bearing No. 0085457927 dt. 05-02-2008 by paying an amount of Rs. 25,000/- as a single premium of the policy, by not agreeing for risk period of 10 years but policy sent for risk period of 10 years, thereafter he received notices from the opposite to deposit an amount of Rs. 50,000/- accordingly he paid 50,000/- on 29-09-2010, received intimation on 08-09-2011 to close the policy. It is in justice. Hence he requested to make the payment of Rs. 75000/- which was deposited by him. But opposite shown its negligence in settling his claim, as such, he filed this complaint for the relief’s as noted in it.
Opposite Insurance Company filed its written version in both cases separately by admitting the fact of subscription of insurance policy of the complaints, but it denied further claims of them. According to both the complaints are not maintainable as those are time barred, otherwise premature. Policy in CC 84/2011 was under lapsed condition. Hence as per the terms and conditions of the Insurance Policy complainant in the said case is not entitled for any of the relief’s.
Complainant in CC 85/2011 filled up proposal form fully knowing well the terms and conditions and thereafter policy was issued, it was of 10 years policy. Hence no service is required to be done by the Insurance Company at this stage, accordingly Insurance Company requested to dismiss the complaint among other grounds.
4. These two complaints have been filed by different persons against same Insurance Company. The contentions of both the complainants in both cases are based on similar facts. Opposite Insurance Company in both the cases filed its written version more or less on similar grounds. Hence both the cases have disposed off by this common judgment.
5. In-view of the pleadings of the parties, in both the cases, now the points that arise for our consideration and determination are that:
In C.C. No. 84/11:-
1. Whether the complainant proves alleged deficiency in service by the opposite Insurance Company. ?
2. Whether the complainant is entitled for the relief’s as prayed in his complaint.
3. What order?
In C.C. No. 85/11:-
1. Whether the complainant proves alleged deficiency in service by the opposite Insurance Company. ?
2. Whether the complainant is entitled for the relief’s as prayed in his complaint.
3. What order?
6. Our findings on the above points are as under:-
In C.C. No. 84/11 :-
(1) In affirmative.
(2) As discussed in the body of the judgment and as noted in the final order
(3) In-view of the findings on Point No- 1 & 2, we proceed to pass the
final order for the following :
In C.C. No. 85/11 :-
(3) In affirmative.
(4) As discussed in the body of the judgment and as noted in the final order
(3) In-view of the findings on Point No- 1 & 2, we proceed to pass the
final order for the following
REASONS
POINT NO.1 :- In C.C. No. 84/11.
7. To prove the facts involved in this point affidavit-evidence of the complainant was filed, he was noted as PW-1. The documents Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-16 are marked. On the other hand, affidavit-evidence on behalf of the opposite was filed, who is noted as RW-1 and documents Ex.R-1 to Ex.R-9 are marked. Written arguments filed.
POINT NO.1 :- In C.C. No. 85/11.
8. To prove the facts involved in this point, affidavit-evidence of the complainant was filed, he was noted as PW-1. The documents Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-3 are marked. On the other hand, affidavit-evidence on behalf of the opposite was filed, who is noted as RW-1 and documents Ex.R-1 to Ex.R-12 are marked. Written arguments filed.
In C.C. No. 84/11.
The main contention of the Opposite Insurance Company is that, complainant filed and neglected and failed to pay annually premium amount towards policy subscribed by him, as such policy became in lapsed condition. Hence payment of any amount under the policy would not arise for consideration.
In the light of the reasons stated by the Opposite Insurance Company we have to see as to whether such contention of the Insurance Company was justified in not making payment of the Insurance amount.
Admittedly policy of the complainant by making payment of Rs. 1,00,000/- is not in dispute. Ex.P-5 premium receipt dt. 29-09-2010 and Ex.P-5(1) DD copy of the regular payment of Rs. 50,000/- to the Opposite Insurance Company as per its request clearly establishes that, the complainant paid Rs. 1,50,000/- towards policy. But the premium amount of Rs. 50,000/- was sent back. Rest of the facts as alleged by the complainant are not in dispute. In view of the fact, why the Company issued a receipt dt. 29-09-2010 regarding the receipt of premium amount vide DD ExP-5(1) for Rs. 50,000/- Insurance Company was under duty obligation to inform the non payment of premium by the policyholder well within time, if it was done so, then the risk lies on the complainant for not making payment, in the present circumstances, there are no such facts and circumstances out coming from the side of the Opposite Insurance Company. No doubt there might be several terms and conditions incorporated in the policy, but it does not mean to say that, Insurance Company has to swallow the huge amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- of the complainant. When the premium not paid in time, then it is the bounden duty Insurance Company to inform it to the complainant. The complainant seems to be innocent, as he paid a huge amount of Rs. 50,000/- towards premium as demanded. Hence, we are of the view that, non refunding deposit amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- by the Insurance Company by saying that, there was no terms and conditions under the policy is not legally justified, accordingly complainant established the deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Insurance Company, accordingly we answered Point No-1 in affirmative.
In C.C. No. 85/11.
9. As regards to Point No-1, in CC No. 85/11 is concerned, it is undisputed fact that, complainant subscribed Insurance Policy by depositing an amount of Rs. 75,000/- on 05-02-2008, thereafter Opposite Insurance Company issued notice to pay premium and thereby complainant paid premium amount of Rs. 50,000/- complainant is intending to close the policy, opposite has to pay an amount of Rs. 75,000/- but Opposite Insurance Company is refusing to refund the said amount. No doubt the risk of the policy is for 10 years, however the complainant being poor person is not able to make such heavy payment for a long period of 10 years. In the said circumstances, we are of the view that, Opposite Insurance Company cannot refuse to return the deposit amount of Rs. 75,000/-. But the written version of the Insurance Company is based on the principles of the Insurance Act without proper grounds for refusal of the claim of the present complainant under such circumstances, we are of the view that, Opposite Insurance Company will not be put under any loss, if it returned an amount of Rs. 75,000/- without interest. Non payment of such deposit amount without interest is a deficiency in service, accordingly we answered Point No-1 in affirmative.
POINT NO.2 :- In C.C. No. 84/11.
10. Admittedly the deposit amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- by the complainant, as such he is entitled for to recover an amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- without any interest from the Opposite Insurance Company. As regards to deficiency in service an amount of Rs. 3,000/- is granted to the complainant and cost of Rs. 2,000/- is awarded to the cost of litigation, accordingly complainant is totally entitled for Rs. 1,05,000/- without interest.
POINT NO.2 :- In C.C. No. 85/11.
11. The complainant is entitled to recover an amount of Rs. 75,000/- from the Opposite Insurance Company, as it is deposit amount by him, complainant not entitled to get another amount from the said amount. However, as regards to deficiency in service an amount of Rs. 3,000/- is granted to the complainant and cost of Rs. 2,000/- is awarded to the cost of litigation, as such complainant is entitled to recover a total amount of Rs. 80,000/- without cost, accordingly this Point is answered.
POINT NO.3 :- In C.C. No. 84/11 & CC.No.85/11.
12. In view of our findings on Point Nos. 1 & 2 in C.C. No. 84/11 and 85/11, we proceed to pass the following order.
ORDER
In C.C. No. 84/11.
13. The complaint filed by the complainant in C.C. No. 84/11is partly allowed with cost.
Complainant is totally entitled to recover an amount of Rs. 1,05,000/- without interest from the Opposite Insurance Company.
Opposite Insurance Company is granted one month time to make the payment of the above said amount to the complainant from the date of this order.
In CC.No.85/11.
The complaint filed by the complainant in C.C. No. 85/11is partly allowed with cost.
Complainant is totally entitled to recover an amount of Rs. 80,000/- from the Opposite Insurance Company without cost.
Opposite Insurance Company is granted one month time to make the payment of the above said amount to the complainant from the date of this order.
Keeping the copy of judgment in C.C. No. 85/11.
Intimate all the parties accordingly.
(Dictated to the Stenographer, typed, corrected and then pronounced in the open Forum on 18-04-12)
Smt.Pratibha Rani Hiremath, Sri. Gururaj Sri. Pampapathi,
Member. Member. President,
Dist.Forum-Raichur. Dist-Forum-Raichur Dist-Forum-Raichur.
