Jharkhand

Bokaro

CC/18/4

Lalit Narayan Verma - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Manager, Bank of India - Opp.Party(s)

Annu Mishra

14 Nov 2022

ORDER

District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bokaro

Date of Filing-16-01-2018

Date of final hearing-14-11-2022

 Date of Order-14-11-2022

Case No. 04/2018

Lalit Narayan Verma S/o Brij Kishor Verma,

R/o-165, Adarsh Colony Telidih Road Chas,

P.S.- Chas, District- Bokaro.

Vs..

1. The Manager, Bank of India,

Telidih Branch, Chas, Bokaro

2. The Manager, Star Union Dai Ichi Life Insurance

Regional Office- 2^nd Floor, M5 Plot No.-2437

Opposite Mahendra PD College, Circular Raod, Ranchi

 

                             Present:-

                             Shri Jai Prakash Narayan Pandey, President

                  Smt. Baby Kumari, Member

 

PER- J.P.N Pandey, President

-Judgement-

1.  Complainant has filed this case with prayer to direct the O.Ps. to pay Rs1,56,000/- the amount paid to the O.P. No.2 as first premium and to pay Rs. 25,000/- as compensation and Rs. 25,000/- as litigation cost and interest @ 18% per annum from 2014.

2    Case of the complainant is that he is maintaining A/c No. 23071400470 in the Bank of India Telidih, Chas Branch, Bokaro who was in search of loan for which he was directed to purchase a policy accordingly his Rs. 1,56,000/- was deducted from his account thereafter, loan was granted with condition that his policy will be mortgaged with the bank as security. Further case is that bank has received the policy and in the month of November 2016 complainant repaid entire loan for which  no dues was issued but he came to know that his policy has been terminated due to nonpayment of installment hence bank is having responsibility. On contact with the insurance co. it was informed that policy has already been terminated due to nonpayment of the premium.  Inspite of issuance of legal notice no action was taken hence case has been filed.

3. Inspite of due service of notice O.P. No.1 (Bank) did not turned up hence vide order dt. 16.07.2018 case is being  proceeded ex-parte against O.P. No.1.

4. O.P. No.2 (Insurance Co.) appeared and has filed W.S. which is in short is that there is no deficiency in service or negligence on the part of the O.P. rather as per norms policy dt. 13.08.2014 was sent to the complainant through Speed Post in which free look period of 15 days was prescribed for return of the policy but complainant has not returned it rather he has kept the policy with him. Further reply is that complainant never approached this O.P. for about non receipt of the policy bond for almost three years rather for the first time on 18.08.2017 he raised grievance that policy was missold to him as a single premium policy and requested the refund of premium amount and thereafter, a legal notice dt. 28.11.2017 was received which has been dully replied on 13.12.2017 mentioning therein that after free look period there is no provision for return of the premium.

5. Point for determination is that whether complainant is entitled to get relief as prayed ?

6. On perusal of the record it appears that opening of the policy with O.P. No.2 by the complainant is not in dispute. Annexure-2 ,3 4, 5 & 6 are photo copy of the policy papers which show that policy was commenced on 13.08.2014 and its maturity date was 13.08.2029 and annual premium was Rs. 1,56,171/- payable in the month of August of each year till five years only. Papers produced by the complainant are not showing the fact that this policy was deposited/mortgaged with O.P. No.1. It is admitted that except payment of first premium on 13.08.2014 no any other premium has been paid by the complainant to the Insurance co. and concerned policy was never surrendered during free look period.

7. Onus was on the complainant to prove that he has not received the policy papers rather all policy papers were received by the O.P. No.1 (Bank) but it has not been discharged. It has also not been proved by any paper that the policy paper was deposited/received by the Bank directly. In this way we are of the view that complainant has failed to prove its case for grant of relief as prayed. The free look period has expired sometime in the Month of August 2014 hence limitation for filing the case will start from that very date which expires in the month of August 2016 in this way this case is time barred.  Therefore, we are of the view that complainant is not entitled to get any relief as prayed.

8. Accordingly this case is dismissed with cost.

(J.P.N. Pandey)

                                                                                President

 

                                                                                               

                                                                              (Baby Kumari)

                                                                                  Member