State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Sh. Hari Om. vs M/S Tata Aig L.I.Co. & Ors. on 27 April, 2017
H. P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL
COMMISSION SHIMLA
First Appeal No. : 250/2016
Date of Presentation: 26.07.2016
Order Reserved On : 25.03.2017
Date of Order : 27.04.2017
......
Hari Om son of Shri Rewal Chand Sood resident of Set No.2
Khushi Ram Building Sanjauli Shimla-6.
...... Appellant/Complainant
Versus
1. M/s. Tata AIG Life Insurance Company Life Police
Owners Services Delphi-B Wing 2nd Floor Arcade Evenue
Hirad Nandni Business Park Powai Mumbai-400 076
(Maharashtra).
2. M/s. Tata AIG Life Insurance Company Life Police
Owners Services Branch Office Circular Road Himland
Hotel Shimla-171002.
3. M/s. Tata AIG Life Insurance Company Life Policy
Owners Services Delphi-B Wing 2nd Floor Arcade Evenue
Hira Nandni Business Park Powai Mumbai -400 076
(Maharashtra) through is Managing Director.
......Respondents/Opposite parties
Coram
Hon'ble Justice P.S. Rana (R) President
Hon'ble Mr. Vijay Pal Khachi Member
Hon'ble Mrs. Meena Verma Member
Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes.
For Appellant : Mr. Abhishek Sood Advocate.
For Respondents : Mr. Digvijay Singh Advocate.
JUSTICE P.S. RANA (R) PRESIDENT:
O R D E R:- Present appeal is filed under section 15 of Consumer Protection Act 1986 against order dated 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the order? Yes.
Hari Om Versus M/s. Tata AIG Life Insurance Company & Ors.
(F.A. No.250/2016) 08.06.2016 passed by learned District Forum Shimla in consumer complaint No.333/2011 title Hari Om Versus M/s. Tata AIG Life Insurance Company & Ors.
Brief facts of Case:
2. Complainant Hari Om filed complaint under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act 1986 before learned District Forum Shimla pleaded therein that complainant obtained life insurance policy from opposite parties. It is pleaded that complainant paid three regular premium of Rs.8000/- (Eight thousand) half yearly. It is pleaded that opposite party did not encash fourth premium. It is pleaded that thereafter complainant sent another cheque bearing No.3966754 for a sum of Rs.16000/-(Sixteen thousand). It is pleaded that opposite parties vide letter dated 12.06.2007 informed complainant that policy was elapsed w.e.f. October 2006 due to non receipt of premium. It is further pleaded that opposite parties accepted the subsequent premium cheque to the tune of Rs.16000/-(Sixteen thousand) Annexure-C-1. It is pleaded that thereafter opposite parties vide letter dated 28.07.2008 returned last three premium amounting to Rs.24000/-(Twenty four thousand) vide cheque No.304447. It is pleaded that thereafter complainant personally visited office of opposite parties to inquire about the status of policy. It is pleaded that representatives of 2 Hari Om Versus M/s. Tata AIG Life Insurance Company & Ors.
(F.A. No.250/2016) opposite parties directed complainant to fill up surrender form. It is pleaded that thereafter surrender form was filled up. It is pleaded that complainant was entitled for a refund of Rs.20624.47/-(Twenty thousand six hundred twenty four rupees and forty seven paise) but same was not refunded. It is pleaded that thereafter complainant issued legal notice to opposite parties and it is pleaded that complainant also suffered mental torture and harassment on account of deficiency in service on behalf of opposite parties. Complainant sought relief of payment of Rs.42274.47 (Forty two thousand two hundred seventy four rupees & forty seven paise) with pendent lite future interest from the date of complaint till actual payment.
3. Per contra version filed on behalf of opposite parties pleaded therein that opposite parties denies all the allegations mentioned in complaint. It is pleaded that opposite parties received an amount of Rs.16000/-(Sixteen thousand) on dated 11.06.2007 from complainant on account of renewal premium and interest on overdue premium. It is pleaded that complainant failed to pay premium on time and opposite parties refunded an amount of Rs.24000/-(Twenty four thousand) to complainant. It is pleaded that complainant did not pay regular premium and it is pleaded that present complaint is barred due to own act and conduct of complainant. It is further pleaded that complainant failed to 3 Hari Om Versus M/s. Tata AIG Life Insurance Company & Ors.
(F.A. No.250/2016) pay the premium for 36 months which is lock in period. It is pleaded that question of surrender does not arise at all as per terms and conditions of insurance policy. It is pleaded that opposite parties have refunded premium amount to complainant as per terms and conditions of policy and it is pleaded that opposite party did not commit any deficiency in service. Prayer for dismissal of complaint sought.
4. Learned District Forum dismissed the complaint filed by complainant. Feeling aggrieved against order passed by Learned District Forum complainant filed present appeal before State Commission.
5. We have heard learned Advocate appearing on behalf of parties and we have also perused the entire record carefully.
6. Following points arises for determination in present appeal.
1. Whether complaint i.e. allegation made in writing under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act 1986 can be treated as evidence under section 13(4) of Consumer Protection Act 1986 for adjudication of controversial facts inter se the parties under Consumer Protection Act 1986.
2. Final order.
Findings upon point No.1 with reasons:
7. After perusal of complaint and after perusal of version filed by opposite parties it was observed by learned District Forum that opposite parties have denies and disputed 4 Hari Om Versus M/s. Tata AIG Life Insurance Company & Ors.
(F.A. No.250/2016) allegation contained in complaint. Learned District Forum directed complainant to produce evidence under Consumer Protection Act 1986 on dated 12.06.2013. On dated 12.06.2013 learned Advocate appearing on behalf of complainant has given statement in writing before learned District Forum that complaint alongwith documents be read in evidence and close the evidence.
8. Opposite parties adduced evidence by way of affidavit and filed affidavit of Shri Rahul Dhanotia Legal Manager on behalf of opposite parties. There is recital in affidavit that complainant took policy No.U160000487 from opposite parties on 31.03.2005. There is further recital in affidavit that complainant failed to pay the premium on time and thereafter notice was sent to complainant for payment of premium due for April 2006 and October 2006. There is further recital in affidavit that even after notice issued by opposite party complainant did not pay the premium and thereafter lapse notice was sent to complainant on 07.11.2006 Annexure-R/6. There is further recital in affidavit that opposite party received an amount of Rs.16000/-(Sixteen thousand) on 11.06.2007 from complainant on account of renewal premium and interest on overdue premium. There is further recital in affidavit that thereafter complainant did not pay premium on time and opposite party on 18.01.2008 refunded Rs.24000/-(Twenty four thousand) to complainant 5 Hari Om Versus M/s. Tata AIG Life Insurance Company & Ors.
(F.A. No.250/2016) as per terms and conditions of insurance policy. There is further recital in affidavit that complainant failed to pay premium for 36 months which is lock in period.
9. Complaint is defined under section 2(c) of Consumer Protection Act 1986. As per section 2(c) of Consumer Protection Act 1986 complaint means any allegation in writing made by complainant. It is held that complaint is only allegation in writing made by complainant. It is held that complaint filed under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act is not evidence of parties under section 13(4) of Consumer Protection Act 1986 for adjudication of controversial facts. It is held that learned District Forums are under legal obligation to receive evidence of parties qua controversial facts strictly as per section 13(4) of Consumer Protection Act 1986. There is no recital in section 13(4) of Consumer Protection Act 1986 that complaint would be treated as evidence of complainant when opposite party denies or dispute the allegation contained in complaint.
10. State Commission is of the opinion that learned District Forum has committed procedural material irregularity by way of treating complaint i.e. allegation made in writing as evidence of complainant under section 13(4) of Consumer Protection Act 1986 relating to adjudication of controversial facts inter se parties.
6
Hari Om Versus M/s. Tata AIG Life Insurance Company & Ors.
(F.A. No.250/2016)
11. State Commission is of the opinion that in order to dispose of complaint properly and effectively and to impart substantial justice inter se parties reception of evidence on affidavits under section 13(4)(iii) of Consumer Protection Act 1986 qua controversial facts are essential in the present case on the principle of nature justice and in the ends of justice. It is well settled law that proceedings under Consumer Protection Act 1986 are quasi judicial proceedings. It is not expedient in the ends of justice to dispose of appeal on merits unless procedural material irregularity is rectified by learned District Forum. It is held that allegation in writing by complainant and evidence upon controversial facts are two different concepts under law. In view of above stated facts point No.1 is answered accordingly.
Point No.2: Final Order
12. In view of findings upon point No.1 order dated 08.06.2016 passed by learned District Forum announced in consumer complaint No.333/2011 title Hari Om Versus M/s. Tata AIG Life Insurance Company & Anr. is set aside and complaint is remanded back to learned District Forum Shimla for adjudication afresh qua controversial facts after reception of evidence of complainant on affidavits as mentioned under section 13(4)(iii) of Consumer Protection Act 1986. Learned District Forum will give opportunity to 7 Hari Om Versus M/s. Tata AIG Life Insurance Company & Ors.
(F.A. No.250/2016) opposite party to adduce rebuttal evidence by way of affidavits in accordance with Consumer Protection Act 1986. Learned District Forum will dispose of complaint afresh within three months. Observations will not effect merits of the case in any manner. Parties are directed to appear before learned District Forum Shimla on 09.05.2017. Parties are left to bear their own costs before State Commission. File of learned District Forum alongwith certified copy of order be sent back forthwith and file of State Commission be consigned to record room after due completion forthwith. Certified copy of order be transmitted to parties free of costs forthwith strictly as per rules. Appeal is disposed of. Pending application(s) if any also disposed of.
Justice P.S. Rana (R) President Vijay Pal Khachi Member Meena Verma Member 27.04.2017.
K.D} 8