Date of Filing: 21-04-2016 Date of Final Order: 20-03-2017
Smt. Runa Ganguly, Member.
The factual matrix of the present complaint in brief is that the Complainant obtained a policy from Pan Card Clubs Limited bearing Folio No.1004-01-3895, No.S-100247813 on 26/07/2016 for 5 years 6 months and the date of maturity was 26/01/2016. The Complainant did not get the maturity amount (sum assured) even after maturity of her insurance policy. The Complainant knocked the door of the O.P Company on several occasion with a desire to get back her insured amount but all efforts were in vain. On 16/02/2016 the Complainant preferred an application to the O.P. No.1 for earliest payment through speed post but to no good. Finding no other alternative, the Complainant on 15/03/2016 lodged a complaint against the O.P. No.1, Pan Card Clubs Ltd. The O.P. No.1 appeared before mediation but took so many dates for settlement. Ultimately, being frustrated the Complainant lodged a case before this Forum seeking reliefs and compensation as incorporated in the prayer portion of the complaint.
The O.P. No.1, the Branch Manager, Pan Card Clubs Ltd., Cooch Behar and the O.P. No.2, the Managing Director, Pan Card Clubs Ltd., Prabhadevi, Mumbai have appeared through their Ld. Agent and contested the case by filing W/V, denying all material allegations as brought by the Complainant against them.
The prime contention of the O.Ps is that Pan Card Clubs Ltd. is a company incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 and having its registered office at Mumbai. The Complainant expressed her desire to purchase the room night in the hotels of the company under the holiday option of Pan Card Clubs, Divine Holiday Membership for 66 months for the period from 26/07/2010 to 26/01/2016. It is admitted fact that the certificate bearing Folio No.1004-01-3895 was issued to the Complainant by the O.Ps. Further contention of the O.Ps is that the O.Ps also offered Group Insurance Policy and paid the amount to the Insurance Company.
The O.Ps further contended that the Complainant never utilized the room nights of the O.Ps purchased by her that means the customer did not avail the service offered by the O.Ps for which no question of deficiency in service appeared.
The O.Ps also averred that the present Complainant is not a consumer as per the C.P. Act, 1986 also this Forum has no jurisdiction to try the present dispute as because the Complainant entered in contract with the O.Ps on 26/07/2016, where it has been clear that any dispute between the parties subject to the jurisdiction of Mumbai Courts only.
By putting all the above, the O.Ps prayed for dismissal of the case with other reliefs as the Forum may dim feet and proper.
Considering the pleadings of both sides, the following points are framed in order to arrive at a decision.
POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION
- Is the Complainant a Consumer as per Section 2(1)(d)(ii) of the C.P. Act, 1986?
- Has this Forum jurisdiction to entertain the instant complaint?
- Have the O.Ps any deficiency in service by not settling the claim of the Complainant and are they liable in any way?
- Whether the Complainant is entitled to get relief/reliefs as prayed for?
DECISION WITH REASONS
We have gone through the record very carefully and also heard the argument in advance by the parties at a length. Peruse also the evidence on affidavit of the parties along with documents made available in the record. Peruse the written argument filed by the O.Ps.
Point No.1.
The Complainant purchased a policy bearing Folio No.1004-01-3895 on 26/07/2010 from the O.P. No.2 and the O.P. No. 1 being a branch office of the O.P. N. 2 received the policy amount from the Complainant. Thus, the relation between the Complainant and the O.Ps, so established from the record we are convinced to hold that the present Complainant is a consumer as per C.P. Act, 1986.
Point No.2.
The O.P. No. 1 is the branch office of the O.P. No. 2 that is situated within the jurisdiction of this Forum and the claim amount of the Complainant is far less than the prescribed limit as such this Forum has territorial as well as pecuniary jurisdiction to try this case.
Point No.3 & 4.
Both the points are taken up for the convenience of discussion as well as related with each other.
Undisputedly, the Complainant obtained a policy bearing Folio No. 1004-01-3895 on 26/07/2010 from the O.P. No.1 and the date of maturity of the said policy was on 26/01/2016.
It is also not in dispute that the O.P Company issued a Divine Holiday Policy in favour of the Complainant.
The point of the dispute is that the O.P Company failed to give the insured value to the Complainant even after elapsing maturity date.
It appears from the documents made available in the record that the Complainant purchased one policy launched by the O.P Company on 26/07/2010. The option of the said policy selected by the Complainant Divine Holiday and purchased 80 rooms for availing service with rate of Rs.900/- per room. The Complainant deposited Rs.72,000/- for purchasing the said policy. The Folio bearing No.1004-01-3895 clearly goes to show that purchased value of per room night was Rs.900/- only and surrender value was Rs.1,200/- per room night i.e. Rs.96,000/- at the time of surrender the policy. It is crystal clear that the Complainant invested Rs.72,000/- to the O.P Company for the period of 5 years 6 months i.e. 66 months and entitled to get the surrender value of Rs.96,000/-.
This policy also coverage Personal Accidental Death Insurance of Rs.1,00,000/- medi-claim Insurance of Rs.50,000/- and Life Insurance Policy of Rs.5,000/- after expiring the insured period, the Complainant by a letter dated 16/02/2016 preferred insurance claim. Thereafter, by not getting the insured amount, surrender value, she made a complaint before the Assistant Director, Consumer Affairs Department, Cooch Behar for amicable settlement but the mediation failed for which this case arisen out.
During the course of the argument, the Ld. Agent for the O.Ps vehemently argued and also stated in their W/V as well as in evidence on affidavit that the Complainant did not avail the services as offered by the O.Ps also never utilized the room night services for which no question of deficiency on the part of the O.Ps. There is no scrap of papers in the record filed by the O.P. to substantiate their contention.
In this juncture, it is pertinent to mention here that as and when the O.Ps received the amount for the policy and issued certificate with an assurance to return more amount as surrender value after maturity, the service established for which the plea as taken by the O.Ps is not tenable in the eye of law. Furthermore, the O.Ps failed to return back the maturity amount/surrender value even after surrender the policy certificate at the ending of the policy period. The O.Ps also took no initiative despite several requests of the Complainant. Thus, deficiency in service cannot be ruled out against the O.Ps.
It is also pertinent to mention here that any financial institution like the O.P Company cannot enjoy the public money without giving any service. This type of Money Marketing Agencies are running their business by adopting unfair trade practice and deprived the common people by lucrative advertisements also deceived them by introducing unilateral terms and conditions that violate Section 14 of the C.P. Act, 1986.
In the light of the foregoing discussion it is established that there is clear deficiency in service from the side of the O.Ps by not settling the claim of the Complainant also they have adopted unfair trade practice. Thus, the Complainant is entitled to get reliefs as sought for. All the points are decided in favour of the Complainant.
The complaint succeeds accordingly.
Hence,
It is Ordered,
That the present case be and the same is allowed on contest against the O.P. No.1 & 2 with cost of Rs.2,000/-.
The O.Ps are directed to return the surrender value of Rs.96,000/- in connection with the Folio No.1004-01-3895 to the Complainant with 8% interest per annum from the date of the surrender the policy.
The O.Ps are further directed to pay Rs.5,000/- as compensation for mental pain & agonies of the Complainant. The O.Ps shall have to pay Rs.5,000/- to the Legal Aid Account for adopting unfair trade practice. The entire order must be complied by the O.Ps jointly and/or severally within 30 days i/d the interest @ 8% P.A. shall be levied upon the unpaid amount till its full realization.
Let a plain copy of this Order be supplied to the parties concerned by hand/by Registered Post with A/D forthwith, free of cost, for information & necessary action, as per rules.
Dictated and corrected by me.
