State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Reliance Life Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Neeraj Kumar Son Of Shri Tara Chand on 22 October, 2012
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
PUNJAB, DAKSHIN MARG, SECTOR 37-A, CHANDIGARH.
(1) First Appeal No.536 of 2011
Date of institution : 24.3.2011
Date of decision : 22.10.2012
Reliance Life Insurance Co. Ltd., Sukhdev Singh Ahluwalia Complex, Ground
Floor, Hazi Rattan Chowk, Bathinda through its Branch Manager.
.......Appellant
Versus
Neeraj Kumar son of Shri Tara Chand, resident of Thakur Dass Labha Ram,
Grain Market, Bhucho Mandi, Bathinda.
...Respondent
First Appeal against the order dated 27.1.2011
of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal
Forum, Bathinda.
(2) First Appeal No.1274 of 2010
Date of institution : 23.7.2010
Date of decision : 22.10.2012
1. Reliance Life Insurance Co. Ltd., Sukhdev Singh Ahluwalia Complex,
Ground Floor, Hazi Rattan Chowk, Bathinda through its Branch
Manager.
2. Reliance Life Insurance Co. Ltd., Regd. Office : H Block, Ist Floor,
Dhirubhai Ambani Knowledge City, Navi Mumbai 400 710 through its
Managing Director.
.......Appellants
Versus
Naresh Garg son of Dewan Chand Garg, resident of Namdev Marg, 40 Feet
Road, Corner Bhatti Road, Bathinda.
...Respondent
First Appeal against the order dated 11.6.2010
of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal
Forum, Bathinda.
First Appeal No.536 of 2011. 2
(3) First Appeal No.533 of 2011
Date of institution : 24.3.2011
Date of decision : 22.10.2012
Reliance Life Insurance Co. Ltd., Sukhdev Singh Ahluwalia Complex, Ground
Floor, Hazi Rattan Chowk, Bathinda through its Branch Manager.
.......Appellant
Versus
Sanjeev Kumar son of Shri Kulbhushan Lal Gupta, resident of Sanjeev Traders
Company, Commission Agent, Grain Market, Bhucho Mandi, District
Bathinda.
...Respondent
First Appeal against the order dated 27.1.2011
of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal
Forum, Bathinda.
(4) First Appeal No.534 of 2011
Date of institution : 24.3.2011
Date of decision : 22.10.2012
Reliance Life Insurance Co. Ltd., Sukhdev Singh Ahluwalia Complex, Ground
Floor, Hazi Rattan Chowk, Bathinda through its Branch Manager.
.......Appellant
Versus
Rajiv Kumar son of Shri Hari Krishan, resident of Rajiv & Company, Grain
Market, Bhucho Mandi, Bathinda.
...Respondent
First Appeal against the order dated 27.1.2011
of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal
Forum, Bathinda.
(5) First Appeal No.535 of 2011
Date of institution : 24.3.2011
Date of decision : 22.10.2012
First Appeal No.536 of 2011. 3
Reliance Life Insurance Co. Ltd., Sukhdev Singh Ahluwalia Complex, Ground
Floor, Hazi Rattan Chowk, Bathinda through its Branch Manager.
.......Appellant
Versus
Sunil Bansal son of Shri Narsingh Dass, resident of M/s Lal Chand Tara
Chand, Grain Market, Bhucho Mandi, District Bathinda.
...Respondent
First Appeal against the order dated 27.1.2011
of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal
Forum, Bathinda.
(6) First Appeal No.537 of 2011
Date of institution : 24.3.2011
Date of decision : 22.10.2012
Reliance Life Insurance Co. Ltd., Sukhdev Singh Ahluwalia Complex, Ground
Floor, Hazi Rattan Chowk, Bathinda through its Branch Manager.
.......Appellant
Versus
Amra Devi wife of Shri Kewal Krishan Garg, resident of Shri Ram Building,
Ward No.3, Bhucho Mandi, District Bathinda.
...Respondent
First Appeal against the order dated 27.1.2011
of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal
Forum, Bathinda.
(7) First Appeal No.538 of 2011
Date of institution : 24.3.2011
Date of decision : 22.10.2012
Reliance Life Insurance Co. Ltd., Sukhdev Singh Ahluwalia Complex, Ground
Floor, Hazi Rattan Chowk, Bathinda through its Branch Manager.
.......Appellant
Versus
Bhagwan Dass son of Shri Sarup Chand, resident of Near Govt. High School,
Bhucho Mandi, District Bathinda.
...Respondent
First Appeal No.536 of 2011. 4
First Appeal against the order dated 27.1.2011
of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal
Forum, Bathinda.
(8) First Appeal No.539 of 2011
Date of institution : 24.3.2011
Date of decision : 22.10.2012
Reliance Life Insurance Co. Ltd., Sukhdev Singh Ahluwalia Complex, Ground
Floor, Hazi Rattan Chowk, Bathinda through its Branch Manager.
.......Appellant
Versus
Inderjit son of Shri Harkaksh Singh, resident of Shah Hardware Store, Old
Grain Market, Goniana Mandi, District Bathinda.
...Respondent
First Appeal against the order dated 27.1.2011
of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal
Forum, Bathinda.
(9) First Appeal No.540 of 2011
Date of institution : 24.3.2011
Date of decision : 22.10.2012
Reliance Life Insurance Co. Ltd., Sukhdev Singh Ahluwalia Complex, Ground
Floor, Hazi Rattan Chowk, Bathinda through its Branch Manager.
.......Appellant
Versus
Vikas Kumar son of Shri Sham Lal, resident of H.No.1499, D/4, Gali No.2,
Nai Basti, Bathinda.
...Respondent
First Appeal against the order dated 27.1.2011
of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal
Forum, Bathinda.
(10) First Appeal No.541 of 2011
Date of institution : 24.3.2011
Date of decision : 22.10.2012
First Appeal No.536 of 2011. 5
Reliance Life Insurance Co. Ltd., Sukhdev Singh Ahluwalia Complex, Ground
Floor, Hazi Rattan Chowk, Bathinda through its Branch Manager.
.......Appellant
Versus
Gopal Krishan son of Shri Bhushan Lal Bansal, resident of Amrit Lal Bansal &
Sons, Commission Agent, Grain Market, Bhucho Mandi, Bathinda.
...Respondent
First Appeal against the order dated 27.1.2011
of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal
Forum, Bathinda.
(11) First Appeal No.542 of 2011
Date of institution : 24.3.2011
Date of decision : 22.10.2012
Reliance Life Insurance Co. Ltd., Sukhdev Singh Ahluwalia Complex, Ground
Floor, Hazi Rattan Chowk, Bathinda through its Branch Manager.
.......Appellant
Versus
Raman Kant Arora son of Shri Tek Chand Arora, resident of House No.6, Gali
No.2, Vishal Nagar, Bathinda.
...Respondent
First Appeal against the order dated 27.1.2011
of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal
Forum, Bathinda.
(12) First Appeal No.543 of 2011
Date of institution : 24.3.2011
Date of decision : 22.10.2012
1. Reliance Life Insurance Co. Ltd., Sukhdev Singh Ahluwalia Complex,
Ground Floor, Hazi Rattan Chowk, Bathinda through its Branch
Manager.
2. Reliance Life Insurance Co. Ltd., Regd. Office, H Block, Ist Floor,
Dhirubhai Ambani Knowledge City, Navi Mumbai 400 710 through its
Managing Director.
.......Appellants
Versus
First Appeal No.536 of 2011. 6
Nirmala Garg wife of Shri Dewan Chand Garg, resident of Namdev Marg (40
Ft. Road), Corner Bhatti Road, Bathinda.
...Respondent
First Appeal against the order dated 27.1.2011
of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal
Forum, Bathinda.
Before :-
Shri Piare Lal Garg, Presiding Member.
Shri Jasbir Singh Gill, Member.
Present :-
For the appellant : Shri Rajneesh Malhotra, Advocate. For the respondent : Shri Mukand Gupta, Advocate.
PIARE LAL GARG, PRESIDING MEMBER:
This order of ours shall dispose of all the aforementioned 12 appeals as the questions of law and facts involved in all these appeals are same. Facts are taken from First Appeal No.536 of 2011 and the parties would be referred by their status in this appeal.
FIRST APPEAL NO.536 OF 2012:
2. This is an appeal by the opposite party/appellant (hereinafter called "the appellant") against the order dated 27.1.2011 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Bathinda (in short "District Forum") vide which the complaint of the respondent-complainant (hereinafter called "the respondent") was accepted.
3. Brief facts of the complaint were that on 8.11.2006 the respondent purchased Life Insurance Policy No.10384282 from the appellant at Bathinda for the term of 15 years for an amount of Rs.1,00,000/-. The premium of the policy was Rs.6820/- per year.
4. The respondent paid Rs.6820/- as premium in September 2008 and in September 2009 as per the policy to the appellant. The plan of the policy was NON-ULIP. It was alleged by the respondent that the appellant in the month of September 2009 had illegally charged Rs.6890/- as annual premium against the actual premium of Rs.6820/- which was settled at the time of issuance of First Appeal No.536 of 2011. 7 the policy. The respondent deposited an amount of Rs.6890/- on 10.9.2009 with the appellant and on the next day lodged protest with the appellant regarding enhancement of premium without any reason. It was told by the official of the appellant that due to the service tax on the basic premium and on the accident rider as per notification No.8/2009-Service Tax dated 24.2.2009 the premium was rightly charged as Rs.6890/- against Rs.6820/- with effect from 1.6.2009.
5. It was alleged by the respondent that the insurance contract was executed in 2006 and after that there was no such notification of Government of India regarding any service tax etc. on Traditional Insurance Policies but the appellant had charged the same from its policy holders. He had also cited the judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case reported in 2008(2) CPJ 38 (SC) and 2008(4) RCR (Civil) 173 (SC). As per chapter 58 (Life Insurance Service) of the Service Tax Act in Chapter 58.5, Section 66 of the Act is not applicable if the insured/policy holder paid the premium to cover the life insurance but the appellant wrongly and with a mala fide intention charged illegally service tax from the respondent with effect from 1.6.2009 which was issued by the appellant in the year 2006 which was an unfair trade practice on the part of the appellant. The complaint was filed with the prayer that the appellant be directed to refund the amount charged in excess along with interest, not to charge any enhanced premium with service tax etc. in future from the respondent and also prayed for compensation and costs.
6. On service the appellant had filed written reply by taking legal objections that the District Forum was not competent to decide the complaint as the matter involved/relates to imposition of service tax on insurance policy and the respondent can file Public Interest Litigation before Hon'ble High Court or Hon'ble Supreme Court. On merits, it was pleaded that the tax if any imposed by the Government was to be paid by the respondent/insured as per clause 22 of terms and conditions of the policy. It was admitted that the First Appeal No.536 of 2011. 8 respondent had opted the Reliance Connect 2 Life Plan from the appellant.
The demand was correct as education cess and higher education cess was imposed by the Government of India and the respondent was liable to pay the same and the appellant was entitled to charge the same from the policy holders. It was prayed that the complaint may be dismissed with special costs.
7. The parties led their evidence by way of affidavits and documents.
8. After hearing the counsel for the parties and going through the record of the case, the District Forum accepted the complaint with costs of Rs.500/- as compensation and costs and also directed to refund Rs.70/- which were charged in excess from the respondent vide order dated 27.1.2011.
9. Hence this appeal (FA No.536 of 2010) by the appellants for setting aside of the order dated 27.1.2011.
FIRST APPEAL NO.1274 OF 2010:
10. Brief facts of the complaint were that on 20.1.2007 the respondent purchased Life Insurance Policy No.10471340 from the appellant at Bathinda w.e.f. 20.1.2007 for the term of 20 years for a sum of Rs.2,00,000/-. The premium of the policy was Rs.11,450/- per year.
11. The respondent paid Rs.11,450/- as premium in January 2008 and January 2009. However in the month of January 2010 the appellant illegally demanded Rs.11,586.47P as against the annual premium of Rs.11,450/- i.e. Rs.36.47P excess than the annual premium which was already being paid by the respondent. The complaint was filed with the prayer that the appellant may be directed to refund Rs.36.47P which is charged in excess along with interest. The complaint of the respondent was accepted with costs of Rs.500/- vide impugned order dated 11.6.2010 and directed to refund Rs.140/- charged from the respondent in excess.
12. Hence the appeal (FA No.1274 of 2010) by the appellants for setting aside the order dated 11.6.2010.
First Appeal No.536 of 2011. 9FIRST APPEAL NO.533 OF 2011:
13. Brief facts of the complaint were that on 17.9.2006 the respondent purchased Life Insurance Policy No.10316455 from the appellant at Bathinda w.e.f. 17.9.2006 for the term of 15 years for a sum of Rs.2,00,000/-. The premium of the policy was Rs.13,494/- per year.
14. The respondent paid Rs.13494/- as premium in September 2007 and September, 2008. However in the month of September 2009 the appellant illegally charged Rs.13,632/- as against the annual premium of Rs.13494/- i.e. Rs.138/- in excess than the annual premium which was already being paid by the respondent. The complaint was filed with the prayer that the appellant may be directed to refund Rs.138/- which is charged in excess along with interest. The complaint of the respondent was accepted with costs of Rs.500/- vide impugned order dated 27.1.2011 and directed to refund Rs.138/- charged from the respondent in excess.
15. Hence the appeal (FA No.533 of 2011) by the appellant for setting aside the order dated 27.1.2011.
FIRST APPEAL NO.534 OF 2011:
16. Brief facts of the complaint were that on 13.9.2006 the respondent purchased Life Insurance Policy No.10312567 from the appellant at Bathinda w.e.f. 13.9.2006 for the term of 15 years for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/-. The premium of the policy was Rs.6868/- per year.
17. The respondent paid Rs.6868/- as premium in September 2007 and September, 2008. However in the month of September 2009 the appellant illegally charged Rs.6938/- as against the annual premium of Rs.6868/- i.e. Rs.70/- in excess than the annual premium which was already being paid by the respondent. The complaint was filed with the prayer that the appellant may be directed to refund Rs.70/- which is charged in excess along with interest. The complaint of the respondent was accepted with costs of Rs.500/- vide First Appeal No.536 of 2011. 10 impugned order dated 27.1.2011 and directed to refund Rs.70/- charged from the respondent in excess.
18. Hence the appeal (FA No.534 of 2011) by the appellant for setting aside the order dated 27.1.2011.
FIRST APPEAL NO.535 OF 2011:
19. Brief facts of the complaint were that on 22.8.2006 the respondent purchased Life Insurance Policy No.10293391 from the appellant at Bathinda w.e.f. 22.8.2006 for the term of 20 years for a sum of Rs.2,00,000/-. The premium of the policy was Rs.11,090/- (i.e. Rs.10,890/- for Basic Benefit and Rs.200/- for Accident Benefit) per year.
20. The respondent paid Rs.11,090/- as premium in August 2007 and August, 2008. However in the month of August 2009 the appellant illegally charged Rs.11,223/- as against the annual premium of Rs.11,090/- i.e. Rs.133/- in excess than the annual premium which was already being paid by the respondent. The complaint was filed with the prayer that the appellant may be directed to refund Rs.133/- which is charged in excess along with interest. The complaint of the respondent was accepted with costs of Rs.500/- vide impugned order dated 27.1.2011 and directed to refund Rs.133/- charged from the respondent in excess.
21. Hence the appeal (FA No.535 of 2011) by the appellant for setting aside the order dated 27.1.2011.
FIRST APPEAL NO.537 OF 2011:
22. Brief facts of the complaint were that on 30.8.2006 the respondent purchased Life Insurance Policy No.10293289 from the appellant at Bathinda w.e.f. 30.8.2006 for the term of 12 years for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/-. The premium of the policy was Rs.9779/- (i.e. Rs.9670/- for Basic Benefit and Rs.100/- for Accident Benefit) per year.
23. The respondent paid Rs.9770/- as premium in August 2007 and August, 2008. However in the month of August 2009 the appellant illegally charged First Appeal No.536 of 2011. 11 Rs.9880/- as against the annual premium of Rs.9770/- i.e. Rs.110/- in excess than the annual premium which was already being paid by the respondent. The complaint was filed with the prayer that the appellant may be directed to refund Rs.110/- which is charged in excess along with interest. The complaint of the respondent was accepted with costs of Rs.500/- vide impugned order dated 27.1.2011 and directed to refund Rs.110/- charged from the respondent in excess.
24. Hence the appeal (FA No.537 of 2011) by the appellant for setting aside the order dated 27.1.2011.
FIRST APPEAL NO.538 OF 2011:
25. Brief facts of the complaint were that on 7.8.2006 the respondent purchased Life Insurance Policy No.10286163 from the appellant at Bathinda w.e.f. 7.8.2006 for the term of 16 years for a sum of Rs.3,00,000/-. The premium of the policy was Rs.23,340/- (i.e. Rs.23,040/- for Basic Benefit and Rs.300/- for Accident Benefit) per year.
26. The respondent paid Rs.23,340/- as premium in August 2007 and August, 2008. However in the month of August 2009 the appellant illegally charged Rs.23,610/- as against the annual premium of Rs.23,340/- i.e. Rs.270/- in excess than the annual premium which was already being paid by the respondent. The complaint was filed with the prayer that the appellant may be directed to refund Rs.240/- which is charged in excess along with interest. The complaint of the respondent was accepted with costs of Rs.500/- vide impugned order dated 27.1.2011 and directed to refund Rs.270/- charged from the respondent in excess.
27. Hence the appeal (FA No.538 of 2011) by the appellant for setting aside the order dated 27.1.2011.
FIRST APPEAL NO.539 OF 2011:
28. Brief facts of the complaint were that on 19.9.2006 the respondent purchased Life Insurance Policy No.10318057 from the appellant at Bathinda First Appeal No.536 of 2011. 12 w.e.f. 19.9.2006 for the term of 15 years for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/-. The premium of the policy was Rs.6808/- per year.
29. The respondent paid Rs.6808/- as premium in August 2007 and August, 2008. However in the month of August 2009 the appellant illegally charged Rs.6880/- as against the annual premium of Rs.6808/- i.e. Rs.72/- in excess than the annual premium which was already being paid by the respondent. The complaint was filed with the prayer that the appellant may be directed to refund Rs.72/- which is charged in excess along with interest. The complaint of the respondent was accepted with costs of Rs.500/- vide impugned order dated 27.1.2011 and directed to refund Rs.72/- charged from the respondent in excess.
30. Hence the appeal (FA No.539 of 2011) by the appellant for setting aside the order dated 27.1.2011.
FIRST APPEAL NO.540 OF 2011:
31. Brief facts of the complaint were that on 7.9.2006 the respondent purchased Life Insurance Policy No.10308393 from the appellant at Bathinda w.e.f. 7.9.2006 for the term of 15 years for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/-. The premium of the policy was Rs.6761/- per year.
32. The respondent paid Rs.6761/- as premium in September 2007 and September, 2008. However in the month of September 2009 the appellant illegally charged Rs.6832/- as against the annual premium of Rs.6761/- i.e. Rs.71/- in excess than the annual premium which was already being paid by the respondent. The complaint was filed with the prayer that the appellant may be directed to refund Rs.71/- which is charged in excess along with interest. The complaint of the respondent was accepted with costs of Rs.500/- vide impugned order dated 27.1.2011 and directed to refund Rs.71/- charged from the respondent in excess.
33. Hence the appeal (FA No.540 of 2011) by the appellant for setting aside the order dated 27.1.2011.
First Appeal No.536 of 2011. 13FIRST APPEAL NO.541 OF 2011:
34. Brief facts of the complaint were that on 5.9.2006 the respondent purchased Life Insurance Policy No.10302384 from the appellant at Bathinda w.e.f. 5.9.2006 for the term of 20 years for a sum of Rs.5,00,000/-. The premium of the policy was Rs.26,275/- (i.e. Rs.25,775/- for Basic Benefit and Rs.500/- for Accident Benefit) per year.
35. The respondent paid Rs.26,275/- as premium in September 2007 and September, 2008. However in the month of September 2009 the appellant illegally charged Rs.26,600/- as against the annual premium of Rs.26,275/- i.e. Rs.325/- in excess than the annual premium which was already being paid by the respondent. The complaint was filed with the prayer that the appellant may be directed to refund Rs.325/- which is charged in excess along with interest. The complaint of the respondent was accepted with costs of Rs.500/- vide impugned order dated 27.1.2011 and directed to refund Rs.325/- charged from the respondent in excess.
36. Hence the appeal (FA No.541 of 2011) by the appellant for setting aside the order dated 27.1.2011.
FIRST APPEAL NO.542 OF 2011:
37. Brief facts of the complaint were that on 4.8.2006 the respondent purchased Life Insurance Policy No.10286279 from the appellant at Bathinda w.e.f. 4.8.2006 for the term of 16 years for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/-. The premium of the policy was Rs.7250/- per year.
38. The respondent paid Rs.7250/- as premium in August 2007 and August, 2008. However in the month of August 2009 the appellant illegally charged Rs.7334/- as against the annual premium of Rs.7250/- i.e. Rs.84/- in excess than the annual premium which was already being paid by the respondent. The complaint was filed with the prayer that the appellant may be directed to refund Rs.84/- which is charged in excess along with interest. The complaint of the respondent was accepted with costs of Rs.500/- vide impugned order First Appeal No.536 of 2011. 14 dated 27.1.2011 and directed to refund Rs.84/- charged from the respondent in excess.
39. Hence the appeal (FA No.542 of 2011) by the appellant for setting aside the order dated 27.1.2011.
FIRST APPEAL NO.543 OF 2011:
40. Brief facts of the complaint were that on 6.2.2007 the respondent purchased Life Insurance Policy No.10471125 from the appellant at Bathinda w.e.f. 6.2.2007 for the term of 14 years for a sum of Rs.2,00,000/-. The premium of the policy was Rs.16,780/- (i.e. Rs.16,580/- for Basic Benefit and Rs.200/- for Accident Benefit) per year.
41. The respondent paid Rs.16,780/- as premium in February 2008 and February, 2009. However in the month of February 2010 the appellant illegally charged Rs.17,000/- as against the annual premium of Rs.16,780/- i.e. Rs.220/- in excess than the annual premium which was already being paid by the respondent. The complaint was filed with the prayer that the appellant may be directed to refund Rs.220/- which is charged in excess along with interest. The complaint of the respondent was accepted with costs of Rs.500/- vide impugned order dated 27.1.2011 and directed to refund Rs.220/- charged from the respondent in excess.
42. Hence the appeal (FA No.543 of 2011) by the appellant for setting aside the order dated 27.1.2011.
43. All these appeals are filed by the appellant on the ground that the approach of the District Forum is totally arbitrary and against the settled law. The order of the District Forum is against clause of the terms and conditions agreed between the parties and as such is liable to be set aside.
44. Record has been perused. Submissions have been considered.
45. It is not disputed between the parties that the respondent had taken life insurance policy No.10384282 from the appellant for the period of 15 years with effect from 9.9.2006 and paid Rs.6820/- as yearly premium to the First Appeal No.536 of 2011. 15 appellant and also paid the same in September 2007, September 2008 and September 2009 in time.
46. On the other hand, the version of the appellant is that the District Forum has misinterpreted the provisions of notifications No.23/2004 of Service Tax dated 10th September, 2004 (Ex.A-4) vide which the service tax on life insured which was exempted vide notification No.9/2002-Service Tax was cancelled and the same is reproduced hereunder:-
"1. In exercise of the powers conferred by Section 93 of the Finance Act, 1994 (32 of 1994), the Central Government, being satisfied that it is necessary in the public interest to do so, hereby rescinds the notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Finance (Dept. of Revenue), No.4/99-Service Tax, dated the 28th February, 1999 and No.9/2002 Service Tax, dated the 1st August, 2002 except as respects things done or omitted to be done before such rescission."
47. From the above notification, it is crystal clear that the appellant is entitled to charge service tax from the insured.
48. There is also a clause in the terms and conditions of the policy vide which the appellant is entitled to impose and charge any taxes, duties or charges of whatever description levied by any statutory authority at any time including any service tax i.e. currently applicable which is reproduced hereunder:-
" Taxes and Charges The Company will pass on to Policyholder any taxes, duties or charges of whatever description, levied by any Statutory Authority at any time, including any Service Tax that is currently applicable." First Appeal No.536 of 2011. 16
49. So from the above clause of the policy the appellants are entitled to charge any taxes, duties or charges of whatever description, levied by any Statutory Authority at any time, including any Service Tax that is currently applicable.
50. Now the only dispute between the parties which we have to decide is at what rate the appellants are entitled to charge service tax from the policy holders?
51. There are two types of life insurance policies one where there is term plan also called pure product. In these plans only risk insurance charges are taken from policy holder. In this case, the tax is levied at the rate of service tax applicable whether it is 10% or 12% along with 3% case cess for the given year in reference. Second, where the insurance charges in the policy are not explicit. In this policy, the risk and other amount is taken and the insurance paid the maturity amount as per traditional plans also called saving linked insurance plans.
52. It is difficult to segregate the part of the premium that goes to cover the risk of life and the part that goes towards the saving fund, insurance were allowed to pay service tax of 1.5% on the gross premium (collected under these products since 2004). The Government of India has proposed in Budget for the year 2012-13, rate of tax from 1% to 1.5%.
53. We have also perused agreement and terms and conditions of the policies. There is condition in the policies that the insurer can charge any taxes, duties or charges whatever description, levied by any statutory authority at any time including any service tax i.e. currently applicable.
54. The appellants have not disclosed how they calculated service tax etc. on the premium paid by the respondent for the policy. The appellants have not disclosed the procedure for the levy of the service tax upon the premium. As such the appellants are not entitled for any relief as the real facts are not disclosed by the appellants.
First Appeal No.536 of 2011. 17
55. The appellants are directed that they can charge the service tax etc. in future from all the policy holders as per the notification of the I.R.D.A. and shall disclose such notifications in separate letters to the policy holders. If any excess service tax is charged by the appellants from the respondents in the present cases the same be remitted by the appellants to the respondents within one month from the receipt of the order and also supply the copy of calculation as well as relevant notification of the I.R.D.A. or the notification of the Govt. of India, which is applicable upon the different policies purchased by policy holders. However, the order regarding costs awarded by the District Forum is affirmed. The order of the District Forum regarding the refund of excess premium is modified as above.
56. In view of the above discussion, we do not find any merit in all the aforesaid 12 appeals filed by the appellants and the same are hereby dismissed.
57. The appellants had deposited an amount of Rs.285/- with this Commission at the time of filing of the appeal on 24.3.2011. This amount of Rs.285/- with interest accrued thereon, if any, be remitted by the registry to the respondent by way of a crossed cheque/demand draft after the expiry of 45 days under intimation to the learned District Forum and to the appellants.
58. Remaining amount towards costs shall be paid by the appellants to the respondent within one month from the receipt of order. FIRST APPEAL NO.1274 OF 2010:
59. The appellants had deposited an amount of Rs.320/- with this Commission at the time of filing of the appeal on 23.7.2010. This amount of Rs.320/- with interest accrued thereon, if any, be remitted by the registry to the respondent by way of a crossed cheque/demand draft after the expiry of 45 days under intimation to the learned District Forum and to the appellants.
60. Remaining amount towards costs shall be paid by the appellants to the respondent within one month from the receipt of order. First Appeal No.536 of 2011. 18 FIRST APPEAL NO.533 OF 2011:
61. The appellants had deposited an amount of Rs.319/- with this Commission at the time of filing of the appeal on 24.3.2011. This amount of Rs.319/- with interest accrued thereon, if any, be remitted by the registry to the respondent by way of a crossed cheque/demand draft after the expiry of 45 days under intimation to the learned District Forum and to the appellants.
62. Remaining amount towards costs shall be paid by the appellants to the respondent within one month from the receipt of order. FIRST APPEAL NO.534 OF 2011:
63. The appellants had deposited an amount of Rs.285/- with this Commission at the time of filing of the appeal on 24.3.2011. This amount of Rs.285/- with interest accrued thereon, if any, be remitted by the registry to the respondent by way of a crossed cheque/demand draft after the expiry of 45 days under intimation to the learned District Forum and to the appellants.
64. Remaining amount towards costs shall be paid by the appellants to the respondent within one month from the receipt of order. FIRST APPEAL NO.535 OF 2011:
65. The appellants had deposited an amount of Rs.317/- with this Commission at the time of filing of the appeal on 24.3.2011. This amount of Rs.317/- with interest accrued thereon, if any, be remitted by the registry to the respondent by way of a crossed cheque/demand draft after the expiry of 45 days under intimation to the learned District Forum and to the appellants.
66. Remaining amount towards costs shall be paid by the appellants to the respondent within one month from the receipt of order. FIRST APPEAL NO.537 OF 2011:
67. The appellants had deposited an amount of Rs.305/- with this Commission at the time of filing of the appeal on 24.3.2011. This amount of Rs.305/- with interest accrued thereon, if any, be remitted by the registry to the First Appeal No.536 of 2011. 19 respondent by way of a crossed cheque/demand draft after the expiry of 45 days under intimation to the learned District Forum and to the appellants.
68. Remaining amount towards costs shall be paid by the appellants to the respondent within one month from the receipt of order. FIRST APPEAL NO.538 OF 2011:
69. The appellants had deposited an amount of Rs.385/- with this Commission at the time of filing of the appeal on 24.3.2011. This amount of Rs.385/- with interest accrued thereon, if any, be remitted by the registry to the respondent by way of a crossed cheque/demand draft after the expiry of 45 days under intimation to the learned District Forum and to the appellants.
70. Remaining amount towards costs shall be paid by the appellants to the respondent within one month from the receipt of order. FIRST APPEAL NO.539 OF 2011:
71. The appellants had deposited an amount of Rs.286/- with this Commission at the time of filing of the appeal on 24.3.2011. This amount of Rs.286/- with interest accrued thereon, if any, be remitted by the registry to the respondent by way of a crossed cheque/demand draft after the expiry of 45 days under intimation to the learned District Forum and to the appellants.
72. Remaining amount towards costs shall be paid by the appellants to the respondent within one month from the receipt of order. FIRST APPEAL NO.540 OF 2011:
73. The appellants had deposited an amount of Rs.286/- with this Commission at the time of filing of the appeal on 24.3.2011. This amount of Rs.286/- with interest accrued thereon, if any, be remitted by the registry to the respondent by way of a crossed cheque/demand draft after the expiry of 45 days under intimation to the learned District Forum and to the appellants.
74. Remaining amount towards costs shall be paid by the appellants to the respondent within one month from the receipt of order. FIRST APPEAL NO.541 OF 2011:
First Appeal No.536 of 2011. 20
75. The appellants had deposited an amount of Rs.413/- with this Commission at the time of filing of the appeal on 24.3.2011. This amount of Rs.413/- with interest accrued thereon, if any, be remitted by the registry to the respondent by way of a crossed cheque/demand draft after the expiry of 45 days under intimation to the learned District Forum and to the appellants.
76. Remaining amount towards costs shall be paid by the appellants to the respondent within one month from the receipt of order. FIRST APPEAL NO.542 OF 2011:
77. The appellants had deposited an amount of Rs.292/- with this Commission at the time of filing of the appeal on 24.3.2011. This amount of Rs.292/- with interest accrued thereon, if any, be remitted by the registry to the respondent by way of a crossed cheque/demand draft after the expiry of 45 days under intimation to the learned District Forum and to the appellants.
78. Remaining amount towards costs shall be paid by the appellants to the respondent within one month from the receipt of order. FIRST APPEAL NO.543 OF 2011:
79. The appellants had deposited an amount of Rs.360/- with this Commission at the time of filing of the appeal on 24.3.2011. This amount of Rs.360/- with interest accrued thereon, if any, be remitted by the registry to the respondent by way of a crossed cheque/demand draft after the expiry of 45 days under intimation to the learned District Forum and to the appellants.
80. Remaining amount towards costs shall be paid by the appellants to the respondent within one month from the receipt of order.
81. The appeals could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of court cases.
(PIARE LAL GARG)
PRESIDING MEMBER
October 22, 2012 (JASBIR SINGH GILL)
Bansal MEMBER
First Appeal No.536 of 2011. 21