| Final Order / Judgement | DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION PATIALA. Consumer Complaint No. 455 of 30.11.2018 Decided on: 3.9.2021 Chhaju Ram son of Late Shukran Dass, resident of House No.314, Vikas Colony, Street No.3, Circular Road, Near Shagun Sweets, Nabha, Tehsil and District Patiala. …………...Complainant Versus - The Branch Manager, ICICI Bank, Ajit Nagar, Near Leela Bhawan, Patiala.
- The Branch Manager, ICICI Prudential Life Insurance Company Limited, Branch Office Above Bank of India, Building No.6, 2nd and 3rd Floor, Chhoti Baradari , Patiala.
- ICICI Prudential Life Company Limited, Registered Office, ICICI Pru Life Towers, 1089,Appasaheb Marathe Marg, Prabha Devi, Mumbai.
…………Opposite Parties Complaint under the Consumer Protection Act QUORUM Sh. Jasjit Singh Bhinder, President Dr.Harman Shergill Sullar, Member ARGUED BY Sh.Sunil Kumar, counsel for complainant. Sh.R.K.Pandey, counsel for OP No.1. Sh.Gagandeep S.Gerray, counsel for OPs No.2&3. ORDER JASJIT SINGH BHINDER, PRESIDENT - The brief facts of the case are that the complainant approached OP No.1 for availing the loan which was sanctioned by OP No.1 on 29.1.2007 for Rs.6,54,060/-.It is averred that the complainant only received Rs.5,98,000/- and the balance amount of Rs.54000/-was not credited to his loan account. The complainant approached OP No.1 who told that insurance policy in favor of the complainant was issued and has wrongly credited the amount of Rs.54000/- in the account of OPs No.2&3 for the insurance policy without the consent of the complainant. It is averred that the complainant approached the Manager of OP No.1 who told that the insurance policy is regarding the loan and life insurance of the complainant but they never issued the insurance policy to the complainant. The complainant also approached Ombudsman of ICICI Bank on 6.7.2018 in response to which the OPs sent letter dated 7.8.2018 stating that the amount of Rs.54060/-has been credited in the account of OP No.3 vide cheque dated 31.1.2017.Thereafter the complainant sent e-mail to the OPs with the request to cancel the policy and to refund the amount of Rs.54060/- but the OPs did not do so. It is further averred that on 19.10.2018, the OPs again sent letter having admitted their liability and agreed to return the amount of Rs.54060/-.It is further averred that the loan was sanctioned and disbursed to Chhaju Ram alongwith co-applicant Saroj Rani but the insurance policy was made in favor of only Chhaju Ram. The co applicant Saroj Rani died on 29.5.2009 but OPs NO.2&3 have not adjusted ½ share of loan due to death of Saroj Rani. It is further averred that the OPs at their own insured the complainant and issued the policy by deducting the amount without his consent. There is thus deficiency in service on the part of the OPs which caused mental agony, tension and harassment to the complainant. Hence this complaint with the prayer to accept the same by giving direction to the OPs to refund the amount of Rs.54060/- alongwith interest @18% per annum w.e.f. 31.1.2007 till realization; to reconstruct the loan account after deducting the amount already paid by the complainant towards the loan amount including amount of insurance policy; to pay Rs.50,000/-as compensation and Rs.11000/-as costs of litigation.
- Notice of the complaint was duly given to the OPs who appeared and filed written reply.
- In the written reply filed by OP No.1 preliminary objections have been raised that the complaint is not maintainable; that the complaint is barred by limitation.
- On merits it is admitted to the extent that the complainant alongwith co applicant Smt.Saroj Rani has availed loan against property of Rs.6,54,060/- from the OP vide agreement No.LBPAT00001487921 on floating rate of interest. It is submitted that the OP bank has sanctioned and disbursed the loan amount of Rs.6,54,060/- to the complainant in the month of January,2007 out of which Rs.54060/-was deduced against Home Assure/Health Insurance ,availed by the complainant and Rs.1855/- as pre EMI in advance and the complainant was disbursed the amount of Rs.5,98,145/- .It is further submitted that as per letter dated 19.10.2018 Ex.C6, issued by ICICI Prudential Life Insurance Co. Ltd. the insurance company has cancelled the pol8cy and advised the complainant to submit certain documents..It is also admitted that information was sent to the complainant vide letter dated 7.8.2018 that an amount of Rs.54,060/- was paid to OPs No.3&4.It is submitted that loan was sanctioned to the complainant alongwith Saroj Rani. After denying all other averments, the OP has prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.
- In the written reply filed by OPs No.2&3 preliminary objections have been raised that the complaint is totally false, frivolous and vexatious and is gross misuse of process of law; that the complainant has not come to the Forum with clean hands; that the complaint is barred by limitation as the cause of action was accrued to the complainant on 2.3.2007 when the policy was issued and the present complaint has been filed after passing of 11 years and has never approached the OPs during the period of 11 years and that the complaint has been filed with malafide intention.
- On merits, it is submitted on receipt of duly filled proposal form policy was issued to the complainant on 2.3.2007 and sent the policy documents to the communication address mentioned in the proposal form. The premium payment frequency under the subject policy was single and the premium payment amount was Rs.48.165/-.It is pleaded that the complainant is bound by the policy contract and is deemed to have give-up/waived him rights by not exercising the Free Look Provision. It is further pleaded that the complainant did not even approach the OP with a single query with regard to the said subject policy despite aware of the same since 2007/08 and now vide letter dated 6.7.2018 registered a complaint with the Banking Ombudsman and thereafter the OPs replied aforementioned letter vide reply dated 19.10.2018 wherein the OPs as gesture of goodwill offered to cancel the policy and to refund the premium amount subject to receipt of duly signed advance discharge voucher but the complainant never submitted the ADV for availing the refund. There is thus no deficiency of service on the part of the OPs. After denying all other averments, the OPs have prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.
- In support of the complaint, the ld. counsel for the complainant has tendered in evidence Ex.CA affidavit of the complainant alongwith documents Exs.C1 to C6 and closed the evidence.
- The ld. counsel for OP No.1 has tendered in evidence Ex.OPB affidavit of Arashdeep Kumar, Legal Manager alongwith documents Exs.OP1 and OP2 and closed the evidence.
- The ld. counsel for OPs No.2&3 has tendered in evidence Ex.OPA affidavit of Nikita Saurabh, Manager Legal, affidavit Ex.OPC of Nikita Saurabh, Manager Legal Exs.OP3 to OP 10 and closed the evidence.
- We have heard the ld. counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record of the case, carefully..
- The ld. counsel for the has argued that the complainant approached OP No.1 for availing the loan and after that loan was sanctioned on 29.1.2007 amounting to Rs.6,54,060/-.The ld. counsel further argued that the complainant came to know that Rs.5,98,000/-was credited by OP No.1 in the loan account. The complainant approached the OP No.1 but it was told that the loan is insured with OP No.3 and that amount has been given as premium of the policy. The ld. counsel further argued that the complainant has never availed any insurance policy and the amount was wrongly withheld. So the complaint be allowed.
- On the other hand, the ld. counsel for OP No.1 has argued that the complaint is time barred .It is further stated that complainant alongwith Smt.Saroj Rani has availed the loan against the property of Rs.6,54,060/- on floating rate of interest and the loan was insured so the amount of Rs.54060/-was deducted as pre EMI. It was one time payment. The ld. counsel further argued that the health insurance policy was duly given. So the complaint be dismissed.
- The ld. counsel for OPs No.2&3 has submitted written arguments and it is stated that the complaint is time barred and the amount of Rs.54060/-was taken as insurance premium for the loan and policy is duly delivered.
- To prove this case complainant has tendered his affidavit, Ex.CA and he has deposed as per the complaint. Ex.C1 is the loan agreement against the property.Ex.C2 is the letter written by the complainant to Nitin Goyal having written therein that amount of Rs.54000/- has not been credited in the loan account and he never took any policy.Ex.C3 is the document of ICICI Bank , in which it is stated that Rs.54000/- was disbursed in favour of ICICI prudential LIC Ltd. with the consent of the complainant, as health insurance policy.Ex.C4 is another e-mail,Ex.C5 is document of ICICI prudential,Ex.C6 is also letter written by ICICI prudential to Chhaju Ram.
- On the other hand Nikita Saurabh, Manager, Legal of ICICI prudential LIC has tendered affidavit, Ex.OPA, Ex.OPB is the affidavit of Arashdeep Kumar, Legal Manager, ICICI bank and he has deposed as per the written statement, Ex.OPC is another affidavit of Nikita Saurabh, and she has deposed as per the written statement. It is stated that the complaint is time barred having been filed after 11 years of availing the loan. In para No.8 of the affidavit, it is stated that the subject policy is still in force/active and life of the complainant is being covered by the OP till date. In para No.13 , it is mentioned that the OP as gesture of goodwill, offered to cancel the policy and subsequently refund the premium amount ,subject to receipt of duly signed Advance Discharge Voucher (ADV).However, this form was never submitted by the complainant.Ex.OP1 is the proposal form,Ex.OP2 is power of attorney,Ex.OP3 is proposal form,Ex.OP4 is disbursal of the amount .Ex.OP5 is policy document, Ex.OP6letter written to the complainant, in which it is written that the company has looked into the matter and has decided to cancel the policy and to refund the amount on furnishing the documents but as per affidavit, Ex.OPC these documents were never submitted. Ex.OP7 is health insurance policy sent to Chhaju Ram of ICICI Prudential Life Insurance. This policy covered the entire home loan taken by the complainant.Ex.OP8 is also policy document.Ex.OP9 is also policy document.
- As per the complainant he approached OP No.1 for availing home loan and the same was sanctioned on 29.1.2007 amounting to Rs.6,54060/- but the amount of Rs.54,000/-was not given. After that he came to know that the OPs have illegally insured the loan amount with OP No.3, the insurance company. The loan pertains to the year 2007 but this complaint was filed in the year 2017 i.e. after more than 11 years and the complainant came to know in the year 2007 that they have debited Rs.54000/-as the insurance cover, issued by OP No.3.
- As per Section 24A of the Act, which stated as under:
“24A Limitation Period;- (1) The District Forum, the State Commission or the National Commission shall not admit a complaint unless it is filed within two years from the date on which the cause of action has arisen”. In the case of M/s NIIT Ltd. Vs. Ms.Pooja Chugh, Revision Petition No.2416 of 2007, it has been held by the Hon’ble National Commission that, “ As a matter of law, the Consumer Forum must deal with the complaint on merits only if the complaint has been filed within two years from the date of accrual of cause of action and if beyond the said period, sufficient cause has been shown and delay condoned for the reasons recorded in writing. In other words, it is the duty of the Consumer Forum to take notice of section 24A and give effect to it. If the complaint is barred by time and yet the Consumer Forum decides the complaint on merits, the forum would be committed an illegality and, therefore, the aggrieved party would be entitled to have such order set aside.” Further in the case of V.N.Shrikhande Vs. Anita Sena Fernandes, Civil Appeal No.8983 of 2010, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that, “ Section 24A(1) contains a negative legislative mandate against admission of a complaint which has been filed after two years from the date of accrual of cause of action. In other words, the consumer forums do not have the jurisdiction to entertain a complaint, if, the same is not filed within two years from the date on which the cause of action has arisen. This power is required to be exercised after giving opportunity of hearing to the complainant, who can seek condonation of delay under Section 24A92) by showing that there was sufficient cause for not filing the complaint within the period prescribed under Section 24A(1).” Thus the complaint is not maintainable under Section 24A of the Act and the same is liable to be dismissed. - Further the policy is a contract and the parties to the said contract are bound by the terms of the policy. Terms and conditions are required to be read with reference to the stipulation contained in the policy. Non observance of the terms and conditions vitiates the policy and absolves the insurance company of its liability to indemnify the loss to the complainant.
- Further on receipt of a duly filled and signed application/proposal form bearing No.H10226257A alongwith the single premium deposit vide cheque No.048135, the complainant had requested for the issuance of the subject Home Assure Plan of the company and on the basis of the information provided in the application form, insurance policy was issued on 2.7.2007.
- So, it is clear that this complaint is clearly time barred and that with the gesture of goodwill the OPs were prepared to cancel the policy but the complainant did not send the required documents, needed for the refund of the amount. Now the complaint has been filed after 11 years. So the same is dismissed being time barred with no order as to costs.
ANNOUNCED DATED:3.9.2021 Dr.Harman Shergill Sullar Jasjit Singh Bhinder Member President | |
