State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Company ... vs Jagdev Singh on 8 June, 2022
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
PUNJAB, CHANDIGARH.
First Appeal No.662 of 2019
Date of institution : 07.10.2019
Reserved on : 23.05.2022
Date of decision : 08.06.2022
1. Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Company Ltd., GE Plaza, Airport Road,
Pune 411006, through its Managing Director.
2. Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Company Ltd., Branch Office : Above
Dena Bank, Near Lovely Fast Food, Railway Road, Hoshiarpur,
through its Branch Manager.
(through Sh. Amit Khanna, Manager Legal and Compliance, Bajaj
Allianz Life Insurance Co. Ltd., SCO 215-217, Sector-34,
Chandigarh).
....Appellants/Opposite Parties
Versus
Jagdev Singh aged 69 years son of Late Sh. Karam Singh at present C/o
Kuldip Singh Sohal, H.No.236, Basant Vihar, Near D.C. Road, Hoshiarpur.
.....Respondent/Complainant
Appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer
Protection Act, 1986 against the order
dated 25.04.2019 passed by the District
Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (now
"Commission"), Hoshiarpur.
Quorum:-
Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Daya Chaudhary, President
Mrs. Urvashi Agnihotri, Member
1) Whether Reporters of the Newspapers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes/No
2) To be referred to the Reporters or not? Yes/No
3) Whether judgment should be reported in the Digest? Yes/No Present:-
For the appellants : Sh. Varun Chawla, Advocate
For the respondent : Sh. Rishabh Gupta, Advocate
First Appeal No.662 of 2019 2
JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY, PRESIDENT
Miscellaneous Application No.55 of 2022 (for additional evidence) This application has been filed by the appellant-Bajaj Allianz L.I.C. Limited for placing on record the copies of NEFT Certificate, Policy Servicing Request Forms and copy of ID of respondent/complainant i.e. i.e. Annexures A-2 to A-5 by way of additional evidence.
2. Reply to said application has also been filed by the respondent/complainant.
3. For the reasons recorded in the application, the same is allowed. Documents Annexures A-2 to A-5 with the application are taken on record as additional evidence.
Main Case:
4. The appellants/opposite parties (in short the "OPs")-Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Company Limited & another have filed the present appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short "Act") for setting aside the impugned order dated 25.04.2019 passed in Consumer Complaint No.56 of 2018 by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Hoshiarpur (in short now the "District Commission"), whereby the complaint filed by respondent/complainant was partly allowed/accepted against the appellants/OPs.
5. Briefly the facts of the case as made out by the complainant in the complaint are that on the asking of one Sukhwinder Pal Singh-Sales Manager of OPs, he purchased a policy No.0024725135 on 20.08.2006 by paying premium of Rs.2,50,000/-. The term of the policy was 10 years First Appeal No.662 of 2019 3 and it was to be matured on 20.08.2016. The complainant returned to India from Dubai on 17.01.2018 and requested the Sales Manager as well as the officials of OP No.2 to pay the maturity amount, bonus and other benefits but nothing was paid to him. Alleging 'deficiency in service' on the part of OPs on account of non-releasing of maturity amount, the complainant prayed for directions to the OPs to pay maturity amount of Rs.2,50,000/-, bonus and other benefits and Rs.50,000/- as damages as well.
6. Notices were issued to the OPs. They filed joint written reply. It was mentioned in the reply that the complainant had already withdrawn the entire amount as per the terms and conditions of the policy. The complainant applied for partial withdrawal on 27.12.2010 by filling up the requisite Form and also submitted required documents. Thereafter, OPs released an amount of Rs.3,46,500/- through NEFT in the Indusind Bank account No.0220T82342001 of the complainant as per the terms and conditions of the policy. Thereafter, remaining amount of Rs.88,043/- was received by the complainant through cheque No.215140 dated 30.03.2018 sent through speed post. It was further mentioned in the reply that Complaint was time barred and the complainant invested the amount to earn profit. It has further been mentioned that it was not a case of 'deficiency in service' on the part of OPs.
7. The complainant/respondent filed replication to the reply filed by the appellants/OPs by denying the averments made by them that he never applied for partial withdrawal of amount and did not open any First Appeal No.662 of 2019 4 account in the Indusind Bank, as he was permanently living in Dubai. It was further mentioned in replication that even he did not receive any amount from the OPs through NEFT or through cheque as alleged.
8. On appraisal of the contents of the complaint, written reply filed by OPs and evidence as well as arguments raised by counsel for the parties, the complaint was partly allowed by the District Commission. The operative part of the impugned is reproduced as under:-
"9. In the light of above detailed discussion, the complaint of the complainant is partly accepted and the opposite parties are directed to pay the insured amount of Rs.3,12,500/- with interest @12% per annum from the maturity date i.e. 20.08.2016 till realization and further the opposite parties are directed to pay the other amount, if any, attached to the said insured amount. The opposite parties are further directed to pay compensation to the complainant for causing mental tension and harassment to the tune of Rs.25,000/- and litigation expenses of Rs.5,000/-. The entire compliance of the order be made within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of the order. This complaint could not be decided within stipulated time frame due to rush of work. Copies of the order be supplied to the parties free of cost, as per Rules. File be indexed and consigned to the record room."
9. Aggrieved by said order, the appellants/OPs have challenged the same by way of filing the present appeal.
10. There was a delay of 90 days in filing of the appeal. Misc. Application No.2136 of 2019 was filed alongwith appeal for condonation of delay in filing of the appeal which was supported by an affidavit. Said First Appeal No.662 of 2019 5 application was allowed as prayed for vide order dated 04.12.2019 and delay was condoned. Accordingly said application was disposed of.
11. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the District Commission has ignored the material evidence available on the record and has not taken into consideration the reply filed by the appellants/OPs to the complaint. The amount was received by the respondent/complainant as per the terms and conditions of the policy as it was withdrawn during the policy period by way of partial withdrawal and remaining maturity amount thereafter was sent to him through cheque. The complaint was liable to be dismissed on this ground alone but still it was partly allowed. A specific objection was raised in the reply to the complaint that the complainant applied for partial withdrawal of amount on 27.12.2010 and he filled up the Form and also submitted the requisite documents. An amount of Rs.3,45,600/- was withdrawn as per the terms and conditions of the policy. Thereafter, remaining amount of Rs.88,043/- was also received by the respondent/complainant through cheque dated 30.03.2018. Learned counsel further submits that the allegations made in the complaint were categorically denied but still the stand taken in the reply was not taken into consideration while passing the impugned order. At the end, learned counsel submits that the directions were wrongly issued by the District Commission for payment of compensation for causing mental tension and harassment and litigation expenses was also awarded whereas the amount had already been paid and nothing was First Appeal No.662 of 2019 6 payable and as such it cannot be said to be a case of 'deficiency in service' on the part of the appellants.
12. Learned counsel for the respondent/complainant submits that the order passed by the District Commission is well speaking and detailed findings have been recorded. It was specifically mentioned that the respondent/complainant did not receive even a single penny and the appellants/OPs have failed to produce any documentary evidence to prove that amount was credited into the account of the respondent/complainant as he was not having any account in the Indusind Bank Branch Bangalore.
13. Heard the arguments of learned counsel for both the parties. We have also carefully gone through the order passed by the District Commission as well as written submissions, application of additional evidence and reply thereto.
14. Facts relating to filing of complaint, reply thereof and passing of impugned order and thereafter filing of appeal to challenge the impugned order dated 25.04.2019 are not disputed. It has also not been disputed that the policy was purchased by the respondent/complainant and certain terms and conditions were agreed between the parties. The amount of maturity alongwith other certain benefits was to be paid after 12.08.2016. As per the case of the complainant the maturity amount alongwith bonus and other benefits were not paid to him.
15. The issue in the present case is that as to whether the appellants/OPs have paid the entire amount of the policy to the First Appeal No.662 of 2019 7 respondent/complainant or not? The appellants/OPs filed the written submission on 27.12.2020 wherein it has been mentioned that the respondent/complainant had partially withdrawn the amount of Rs.3,45,600/-, which was transferred in his Indusind Bank account No.0220T82342001 through NEFT on 31.12.2010. Thereafter, the appellants/OPs filed an application on 20.01.2022 for placing on record NEFT Certificate (Annexure A-2), Policy Servicing Request Form (Annexure A-3), Policy Servicing Request Form (Annexure A-4) and copy of ID of the complainant (Annexure A-5), as they could not file these documents alongwith reply before the District Commission due to oversight and some miscommunication.
16. On perusal of record, it is apparent that Annexures A-3 to A-5 are already on the record of District Commission's file at pages No.191 to 195 as Mark OPs/3 (colly) and Mark OPs/4. These documents were rebutted by the respondent/complainant by way of filing replication before the District Commission.
17. It is also the argument of learned counsel for the appellants/OPs that the amount was transferred in his Indusind Bank Account No.0220T82342001, Marathali Branch, Bangalore, through NEFT. Learned counsel for the respondent also opposed the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant by stating that he was not having any account in Indusind Bank at Bangalore and the Passport Annexure A- 5 does not belong to him. In reply to the application for additional evidence, the respondent/complainant has also placed on record the copy First Appeal No.662 of 2019 8 of his passport issued at Dubai for the period from 30.05.2004 to 29.05.2014 (Annexure R-1) alongwith departure and arrival record with stamps. The respondent/complainant has also placed on record his renewed Passport issued at Dubai for the period from 30.07.2014 to 29.07.2024 (Annexure R-2) alongwith departure and arrival record. The address has been mentioned on the passport is H.No.383, Adarsh Nagar, Jullundhar, DT Punjab. However the appellants/OPs have failed to rebut the said passport of the respondent/complainant on the record. It is pertinent to mention that in the proposal form (Ex.C-2) the address of the respondent/complainant has been mentioned of Dubai and policy documents were also sent to the respondent/complainant at C/o Kuldeep Singh Sohal, H.No.236, Basant Bihar, Near D.C. Road, Hoshiarpur. The appellants/OPs have failed to prove on record by way of any cogent evidence that the complainant had been residing at Bangalore at any particular of time and said account number of Indusind Bank belongs to the respondent/complainant. It is also pertinent to mention that said NEFT certificate for the transaction period dated 31.12.2010 was not placed before the District Commission by the appellants/OPs. The name of nominee has been mentioned as 'Ms. Nazma' and the amount of partial withdrawal was mentioned as 'Rs.3,46,500/-' in para No.1 (fact of the case) of written reply filed before the District Commission as well as in written arguments filed by the appellants/OPs, whereas the nominee name in the policy documents Ex.C-2 has been mentioned as 'Mrs. Satnam Kaur'. The amount of partial withdrawal has been mentioned as First Appeal No.662 of 2019 9 Rs.3,45,600/-. The appellants/OPs have failed to prove on record that the said account of Indusind Bank at Bangalore wherein the amount was transferred belongs to complainant.
18. It is also the argument of learned counsel for the appellants/OPs that the remaining amount of Rs.88,043/- was sent to the respondent/complainant through cheque No.215140 dated 30.03.2018 which was received by him but the District Commission has ignored the same while allowing the complaint. It is pertinent to mention that after one year from the date of filing the written arguments, the appellants/OPs have filed an application for placing on record the additional evidence wherein it was mentioned that cheque of maturity amount of Rs.83,578/- was sent to the respondent/complainant on 25.01.2017 received back unclaimed. The appellant had also tried to deliver the said cheque on the new addresses of the respondent/complainant and also tried through NEFT twice as well and last attempt was made on 27.09.2021 but it failed. The appellants were willing to pay the maturity amount plus interest i.e. Rs.1,04,083/- to the respondent/complainant subject to getting the correct account details. In the grounds of appeal as well as in written submissions, the appellants claimed that the respondent/complainant received the amount of Rs.88,043/- through cheque No.215140 dated 30.03.2018 and on the other hand they filed an application stating that maturity amount is still unclaimed. It is pertinent to mention that once the partial amount of Rs.3,45,600/- was transferred by the appellants in respondent/complainant's account, then why they could not transfer the First Appeal No.662 of 2019 10 maturity amount of the policy through NEFT. The appellants/OPs have failed to explain the reasons and also failed to mention the addresses of the respondent/complainant where they tried to send the cheque of maturity amount, cheque number, postal/courier receipt. On perusal of record, we find that the stand of the appellants/OPs is contradictory regarding transfer of amount and dates. As such there is no force in the submissions raised by learned counsel for the appellants/OPs
19. In view of facts as mentioned above the appellants have failed to prove that the amount was transferred into the account of the respondent/complainant. Accordingly finding no merit in the contention raised by learned counsel for the appellants and appeal being without any merit is hereby dismissed. We do not find any reason to interfere with the findings recorded by the District Commission accordingly the order passed by the District Commission is upheld.
20. The appellants had deposited an amount of Rs.25,000/- at the time of filing of the appeal with this Commission and further deposited an amount of Rs.1,04,810/- in compliance with order of this Commission. Said amounts, alongwith interest which has accrued thereon, if any, shall be remitted by the Registry to the District Commission forthwith. The respondent/complainant may approach the District Commission for the release of the same and the District Commission may pass appropriate order in this regard in accordance with law.
First Appeal No.662 of 2019 11
22. The appeal could not be decided within the stipulated period due to heavy pendency of Court cases and non-sitting of this Commission due to pandemic of Covid-19.
(JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY) PRESIDENT (URVASHI AGNIHOTRI) MEMBER June 08, 2022.
(MM)