Karnataka

Kolar

CC/47/2015

Sri.V.Krishnamurthy - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Manager, The Reliance Life Insurance Company Limited - Opp.Party(s)

Sriyuth R.Raghupathigowda

10 May 2016

ORDER

Date of Filing: 05/10/2015

Date of Order: 10/05/2016

BEFORE THE KOLAR DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, D.C. OFFICE PREMISES, KOLAR.

 

Dated: 10^th DAY OF MAY 2016

PRESENT

SRI. N.B. KULKARNI, B.Sc., LLB,(Spl.)    …….    PRESIDENT

SRI. R. CHOWDAPPA, B.A., LLB               ……..    MEMBER

SMT. A.C. LALITHA, BAL., LLB         ……  LADY MEMBER

CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO 47 OF 2015

Sri.V.Krishnamurthy,

S/o.Venkataravanappa,

Aged About 44 years,

R/at: Ponnamma Hotel,

Big Bazar Street, Kolar.

(Rep. by Sriyuth. R.Raghupathigowda, Advocat)               ….  Complainant.

 

- V/s -

1) The Manager,

The Reliance Life Insurance Company

Limited, Branch Office, M.G. Road,

Opp. BRM Complex, Kolar.

 

2) The Manager,

The Reliance Life Insurance Company

Limited, Corporate Office, 9^th & 10^th Floor,

Building No.2, R-Teck Park, Nirlon

Compound, Next to Hubmall,

Behind 1-Flex Building,

Goregoon (East), Mumbai

(OP Nos.1 & 2 are rep. by

Sriyuth.K.V.Ramesha, Advocate)                    …. Opposite Parties.

-: ORDER:-

BY SRI. N.B. KULKARNI, PRESIDENT

01.   The complainant having submitted the complaint contemplated Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 has sought relief of directions to the Ops to refund entire policy amount of Rs.18,000/- together with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the first premium. 

02.   The facts in brief:-

(a)    It is contention of the complainant that, he took insurance policy from the Ops for which the assured sum was of Rs.1,17,250/-.  And that payment of premium installments was of yearly basis consisting of Rs.6,000/- each.  And that the policy number issued was 19453972.  And that the first installment of the premium in a sum of Rs.6,000/- came to be paid on 04.11-2011.  And that the 2^nd installment in a sum of Rs.6,000/- came to be paid on 04.11.2012.  And that 3^rd installment in a sum of Rs.6,000/- came to be paid on 07.01.20214.  And that thus the total payment of premium installments came to Rs.18,000/-.  And that the Ops did not permit him to pay the 4^th installment.

 

(b)    It is also contended that the complaint is well within limitation.

 

(c)    And that on 19.06.2015 legal notice came to be issued to the Ops.  And that as it fetched no result the complaint on hand came to be filed seeking above set out relief.

(d)    Along with the complaint on 05.10.2015 itself following 05 documents have been submitted:-

(i) Reliance life insurance policy No.19453972 policy schedule

(ii) Deposit slip premium receipt Nos.5

(iii) Postal receipts No.2

(iv) Postal acknowledgement

(v) Legal notice office copy.

 

03.   In response to the notice issued, the Ops have put in their appearance through the said learned counsel and have put in written version also resisting claim of the complainant in toto:-

(a)    It is contended that, after the payment of first premium of Rs.6,000/- the complainant made no further payments.

(b)    Further it is contended that, as the payment of first premium was on 04.11.2011 the complainant ought to have preferred the complaint by 04.11.2013 and hence as per the principles enunciated in III (2009) CPJ 75 (SC) the complaint is barred by time as per Section 24A of the Act.  Further it is contended by placing principles enunciated in IV (2008) CPJ 156 (NC), IV (2006) CPJ 239 (NC):-

“Kishor Chandrakant Rathod Vs. The Managing Director, ICICI Prudential Life Insurance Co. Ltd., & Another (decided by the National Consumer Commission on 21.05.2014 in Revisions Petition No.3390 of 2013.

 

Shrikant Murlidhar Apte Vs. Life Insurance Corporation of India (Decided by the National Consumer Commission on 02.05.2013 in Revision Petition No.634 of 2012

 

Prema and Ors. Vs. Life Insurance Corporation of India Ltd. IV (2006) CPJ 239 (NC).”

 

as well, 2013 (1) SCALE 410, 2010, (2010) 10 SCC 567, (1966) 3 SCR 500, I (2003) CPJ 393, II (2009) CPJ 34, (1994) 1 CLT (NC) 334, 2006 (2) CPC 668 (SC), (1998) CPJ 13, 1994 (1) CPR 369, I (1991) CPJ 234 (NC) and II (1992) CPJ 487 (NC), as well, Reliance Life Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Madhavacharya in Revision Petition No.211 of 2009, UCO Bank Vs S.D. Wadhwa in Revision Petition No.2479 of 2008 decided on 24.07.2013 maintained that as the insurance policy itself came to be lapsed the very complaint is untenable and also that, when questions like fraud and complicated and complex questions involved in the complaint since require elaborate evidence the Forum lacks jurisdiction to decide the case.  So contending dismissal of the complaint has been sought.

 

(C)    Along with the written version letter of authority is submitted.

 

04.   The very complainant has submitted his affidavit evidence and has again submitted following 09 documents on 05.05.2016:-

(i) Policy bond in policy No.19453972

(ii) Premium paid receipt No.118 on 15.10.2011 amount of Rs.2000/-

(iii) Premium paid receipt No.124 on 17.10.2011 amount of Rs.4,000/-

(iv) Premium amount paid receipt No.421 on 03.11.2012 amount of Rs.5,000/-

(v) Premium amount paid receipt No.423 on 04.11.2012 amount of Rs.1,000/-

(vi) Premium amount paid receipt No.232 on 07.01.2014 amount of Rs.6,000/-

(vii) Postal receipts 02 in numbers

(viii) Duly served postal acknowledgements 02 in numbers

(ix) Legal notice office copy.

 

05.   On behalf of the Ops Sri.Robin Mathew being the manager has submitted his affidavit evidence and on behalf of the Ops the written arguments has been submitted.

 

06.   As on 07.05.2016 only the learned counsel appearing for the complainant was present and others were absent; oral arguments as advanced by the said learned counsel appearing for the complainant only, came to be heard.

 

07.   Therefore the points that do arise for our consideration are:-

1. Whether the complaint is in time?

 

2. Whether the case on had involved any complicated and complex issues like fraud so as to bar the jurisdiction of this Forum?

 

3. Whether the Ops could be held as guilty of deficiency in service?

 

4. Whether the complainant is entitled to the reliefs sought for?

 

5. What order?

 

08.   Findings of this District Forum on the above stated points for the following reasons are:-

POINT 1:-        In the Affirmative.

 

POINT 2:-        In the Negative.

POINT 3:-        In the Affirmative.

POINT 4:-        In the Affirmative.

POINT 5:         As per the final order

                        for the following:-

 

REASONS

POINT 1:-

09.   We will have to ascertain limitation of facts on the strength of the averments made by the complainant.  The complainant has categorically pleaded that, towards insurance premium, first instalmment was paid on 04.11.2011 and the 2^nd installment was paid on 04.11.2012 and the 3^rd installment was paid on 07.01.2014, each installment consisting of Rs.6,000/- and thus according to him the total payment so far was of Rs.18,000/-.  Further allegation of the complainant is that, when he approached the Ops to pay the 4^th installment he was not entertained.  This would mean any time after 07.01.2014, but before 05.10.2015 the date on which the complaint is preferred.  Therefore viewed from any angle this complaint is bound to be held as within time.

 

(a)    By placing principles enunciated in III (2009) CPJ 75 (SC) the Ops intend to plead empathetically that, on 04.11.2011 the only first installment was paid and no subsequent installment were paid and hence the complaint ought to have been preferred by 04.11.2013.  We repeat that as this contention of the complainant that on 04.11.2012 and subsequently on 07.01.2014 he paid sum of Rs.6,000/- on each occasion towards yearly installments.  Therefore preferring of this complaint on 05.10.2015 is bound to be held as within time.  Besides it is worth to note at this juncture that, it is not that there is only a plea on the part of the complainant, but he has produced cash receipts issued by the Ops dated: 04.11.2012 and 07.01.2014 each consisting of Rs.6,000/-.  Hence the said finding on this point.

 

POINT 2:-

10    Nowhere the complainant has pleaded that the Ops had played fraud on him.  Thus it is only an imagination on the part of the Ops that the case on hand is any way complicated issues like fraud.  Since it is unfounded allegation we are of the definite opinion that, the principles so relied by the Ops do not apply to the case on hand and hence we affirm that the complaint since requires summary trial is tenable.

 

POINT 3 & 4:-

11.   To avoid repetition in reasonings and as these points do warrant common course of discussion, the same are taken up for consideration at a time. 

 

(a)    The complainant has produced original life insturance policy being endowment plan as per this policy bearing No.19453972 the complainant was expected to pay only installments of Rs.5,999.27 for 20 years and the date of last premium payment was to be on 04.11.2012.  He has produced cash receipts as issued by the Ops bearing receipt No.118, dated: 15.10.2011 for sum of Rs.2,000/- and receipt No.124, dated: 17.10.2011, for sum of Rs.4,000/- and thus there was payment of Rs.6,000/- for the first installment.

 

(b)    Further we are to note that there is a receipt vide No.421, dated: 03.11.2012, for Rs.5,000/- and receipt No.423, dated: 04.11.2012, for Rs.1,000/- as issued by the Ops.  Thus there was payment of premium for 2^nd installment. 

 

(c)    Further we have to note that there is a receipt No.232, dated: 07.01.2014, as issued by the OP for a sum of Rs.6,000/- as premium payment for 3^rd installment.  In the presence of these receipts, the Ops cannot be permitted to plead that the complainant had paid only 01 installment towards premium of Rs.6,000/- and did not pay any further.

 

(d)    So the Ops have received 03 annual installments and therefore they are guilty of unjustified denial to receive 4^th installment.  Hence there is gross deficiency in service on the part of the Ops as against the complainant.

 

(e)    If supposing payment of 3^rd annual installment were to be belated nothing prevented the Ops to deny to receive the same.  Since they have accepted the said 3^rd annual installment and issued the said receipt, denial to receive the 4^th installment, we repeat is nothing but gross negligence in discharge of their duties.

 

(f)     Therefore we hold that, the Ops are liable and hence the complainant is entitled to refund of Rs.18,000/- the amount paid towards 3^rd annual installment consisting of Rs.6,000/- each together with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from 05.10.2015 the date of the complaint till realization.

 

POINT 5:-

12.   We proceed to pass the following:-

ORDER

(01)  For foregoing reasons the complaint stands allowed with costs of Rs.2,500/- as hereunder:-

 

(a)    We hold that, the complainant is held entitled to refund of Rs.18,000/- together with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from 05.10.2015 being the date of complaint till realization, for being realized from the Ops jointly and severally.

 

(02)  Send a copy of this order to both parties free of costs.

 

(Dictated to the Stenographer in the Open Forum, transcribed by him, corrected and then pronounced by us on this 10^th DAY OF MAY 2016)

 

 

 

 

MEMBER                           MEMBER                  PRESIDENT