Punjab

Ludhiana

CC/20/284

Rakesh Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

ICICI Prudential Life Ins.Co.Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

Shamsher Singh

20 Apr 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, LUDHIANA.

                                                Complaint No:284 dated 05.11.2020.                                                         Date of decision: 20.04.2023.

Rakesh Kumar aged 55 years son of Shri Krishan Kumar, resident of House No.582, Ward No.15, Peer Khana Road, Near SahnewalWalea Di Chakki, Khanna, District Ludhiana.                                                                                                                                                                     ..…Complainant

                                                Versus

1. ICICI Prudential Life Insurance, Regd., Off: 1089, AppasahebMarathe Marg, Prabhadevi, Mumbai-400025, through its General Manager/Office Incharge.
2. ICICI Prudential Life Insurance, Purewal Tower, SamralaChowk, G.T. Road, Khanna, District Ludhiana-141401, through its Manager.

…..Opposite parties 

Complaint Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.

QUORUM:

SH. SANJEEV BATRA, PRESIDENT

SH. JASWINDER SINGH, MEMBER

MS. MONIKA BHAGAT, MEMBER

 

COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES:

For complainant             :         Sh. Shamsher Singh Lohat, Advocate.

For OPs                          :         Sh. V.S. Mand, Advocate.

 

ORDER

PER SANJEEV BATRA, PRESIDENT

1.                Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the complainant availed ICICI Pru IPRU Wealth Builder II Plan having policy No.18378113 from the opposite parties by opting auto debit from his bank account No.040201505161 in ICICI Bank Ltd. It was incumbent on the part of the opposite parties to invoke the said option and to deduct the amount of premium regularly from the account through option of auto debit. The complainant stated that in the beginning, the opposite parties debited some of the installments through the option of auto debit from his account but they stopped debiting the premium installments through auto debit and unilaterally and arbitrarily without any right or authority terminated his insurance policy. Further the complainant stated that the opposite parties had debited all other installments/premiums from the account of the complainant but intentionally and deliberately in order to lapse the police of the complainant, did not debit the last installment/premium from his account and lapsed the policy. At the time of termination of the insurance policy, the complainant was having sufficient balance in his account more than Rs.1 Crore and he never stopped the payment of ECS in the said account. After termination of the policy the opposite parties had sent one cheque No.879618 dated 28.01.2019 for Rs.4,37,374.88 drawn on ICICI Bank Ltd., Nariman Point, Mumbai in favour of the complainant for the proceedings of the insurance policy in respect of installments of premium paid by the complainant. The complainant stated that when he was going to present the said cheque in his bank, the opposite parties kept on making one or other false pretext and requested him not to present the cheque in the bank on the pretext that they are making efforts for revival of the policy but they kept on making same excuses due to which limitation for presenting the cheque got elapsed. Then the complainant requested the opposite parties to revalidate the cheque but they again started making lame excuses and consumed much time by making false pretext and thereafter the lockdown/curfew was imposed. After opening of lockdown/curfew, the complainant approached and confronted the opposite parties about status of revival of his policy, the opposite parties openly proclaimed that the policy of the complainant cannot be revived. When the complainant requested the opposite parties to take back the cheque No.879618 back and to get the same revalidated then the officials of opposite parties proclaimed that as per their record, the said cheque has already been encashed. The complainant further stated that as the original cheque is lying with him till date and as such, there is no question of encashment of the said cheque. The act and conduct on the part of the opposite parties amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice due to which the complainant has suffered physical and mental pain, agony, harassment, humiliation for which he is entitled for compensation.The complainant issued legal notice dated 29.09.2020 upon the opposite parties through Sh. Shamsher Singh Lohat, Advocate but to no avail. Hence this complaint whereby the complainant has sought direction to opposite parties to make the payment cheque amount of Rs.4,37,374.88 and to pay compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- and litigation expenses of Rs.20,000/-.

2.                Upon notice, the opposite parties appeared and filed joint written statement in which they assailed the complaint on the ground of lack of cause of action; no deficiency in service on their part etc. The opposite parties stated that ICICI Bank and the opposite parties are two separate, different and independent legal entities, also neither of the entities have any sort of administrative control on the other and as such, the opposite parties cannot be held liable for any direct or indirect acts of the ICICI Bank or any other person. The opposite parties further stated that they sent the foreclosure amount of Rs.4,37,374.88 on 28.01.2019 to the complainant but the fraudsters diverted the amount in the account of some other person. The opposite parties company has already been cheated by the fraudster (s) and they have initiated civil and criminal proceedings against fraudsters and the branch employee and have also sent a legal notice dated 30.09.2019 to the person in whose account the payout amount has been wrongly received calling him upon to repay the said amount. The present complaint cannot be adjudicated under summary proceedings and it can only be adjudicated in a civil court after holding a proper trial and leading substantive evidence. The opposite parties further stated that they are ready & willing to pay the foreclosure amount of rs.4,37,374.88 as a gesture of goodwill subject to submission of signed memorandum or as per directions of this Commission. The opposite parties had already offered to pay the said amount to the complainant when he had approached the grievance redressal mechanism of the company as well when the complainant had sent a legal notice. Both the times, though the company had sent advance discharge voucher and requested him to approach with signed copy of the same along with KYC documents, the complainant did not come back due to which the company could not process the cheque in the name of the complainant.

                   On merits, the opposite parties reiterated the crux of averments made in the preliminary objections. However, the opposite parties submitted that the policy No.18378113 was issued on 28.01.2014 on the basis of proposal form, details of the policy are reproduced as under:-

Product/Product Code	IPRU Wealth Builder II UA6
Policy No.	18378113
Appication No.	OC9016093BA0101
Proposed signed date	Saturday, January 25, 2014
Proposed received date	Saturday, January 25, 2014
RCD	Tuesday, January 28, 2014
Premium Instalment	Rs.100100/-
Total premiums paid	Rs.400400/-

 

The opposite parties further submitted that under the policy, the complainant was also required to pay premium for a period of 5 years on a yearly basis but he had paid 4 years premium and did not pay fifth premium amount for reasons best known to him. The complainant has himself stopped the auto debit facility and due to non-payment of the premiums, the policy was foreclosed on 28.01.2019 and they sent SMSs to pay the premiums but the complainant failed to do so. However, the complainant after almost two years, the complainant sent a legal notice dated 29.09.2020 which was duly replied by the opposite parties informing the complainant that they without admitting to the allegations raised in the said legal notice. The opposite parties have denied that there is any deficiency in service and have also prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

3.                In support of his claim, the complainant the complainant tendered his affidavit Ex. CA in which he reiterated the allegations and the claim of compensation as stated in the complaint. The complainant also tendered documents Ex. C1   is the legal notice dated 29.09.2020, Ex. C2 and Ex. C3 are the postal receipts, Ex. C4 is the copy of letter dated 29.01.2019, Ex. C5 is the copy of cheque, Ex. C6 is the copy of account statement of the complainant w.e.f. 04.06.2012 to 13.04.2020, Ex. C7 is the copy of account statement of the complainant w.e.f.  04.01.2012 to 04.05.2012, Ex. C8 is the copy of insurance plan, Ex. C9 is the copy of Aadhar card of the complainant and closed the evidence.

4.                On the other hand, counsel for the opposite parties tendered affidavit Ex. RA Ms. Swathy Nair, Authorized representative of the opposite parties along with documents Ex. OP1/1 is the copy of recovery letter dated 30.09.2019, Ex. OP1/2 is the copy of letter dated 28.10.2020 of the opposite parties and closed the evidence.

5.                We have heard the arguments of the counsel for the parties and also gone through the complaint, rejoinder, affidavit and annexed documents and written reply along with affidavits and documents produced on record by both the parties. We have also gone through the written arguments submitted by the opposite parties.

6.                The complainant availed policy No.18378113 known as ICICI Pru IPRU Wealth Builder II Plan in January 2014 and it was due to mature after 10 years. The complainant was required to pay premium of Rs.1,00,100/- on yearly basis for a period for five years. The complainant was also maintaining bank account No.040201505161 in ICICI Bank Ltd and had issued an ECS mandate for payment of yearly premium. Also he was continuously maintaining sufficient funds so that ECS mandate may not dishonor. On 29.01.2019, the opposite parties issued and sent a letter Ex. C4 a final foreclosure (termination) payout of cheque No.879618 dated 28.01.2019 Ex. C5 Rs.4,37,374.88 and also gave an option of revival in the said letter itself. The cheque was valid for period of three months from its date of issuance. It can be gathered from the pleadings and evidence on record that during validity period of the cheque, the policy could not be revived and in the meantime, the cheque expired and it could not be encashed. The opposite parties neither effected revival of the policy nor revalidated the issued cheque which is still in possession of the complainant till date. The opposite parties introduced another factor which is evident from the letter dated 30.09.2019 Ex. OP1/1 wherein it has been stated that the annuity amount of Rs.4,37,374.88 was erroneously processed via NEFT to the account of Capital Small Finance Bank Lim on 12.04.2019. The opposite parties have also started demanding certain documents listed in the letter Ex. OP1/2 in order to process the payment of foreclosure payout amount. In fact, these documents were not demanded earlier when the opposite parties had issued the cheque Ex. C5. In the written statement as well as in the written arguments submitted by the opposite parties, now they have conceded that they are ready and willing to pay the foreclosure amount of Rs.4,37,374.88 as a gesture of goodwill if the complainant agrees to sign the memorandum of settlement. The chronology of the events indicates that the opposite parties did not produce any documents showing that the policy was foreclosed due to non-payment of the premium or that auto debit facility/ECS mandate was revoked by the complainant. Further the opposite parties halted the payment of foreclosure amount on the pretext of revival of the policy which lead to expiry of validity period of the cheque. No attempt was made to revalidate the expired cheque promptly. Rather an excuse that erroneously the payment to Capital Small Finance Bank Limited was coined. Even at the time of filing written version before this Commission, the opposite parties did not tender foreclosure amount in the court to show its bonafide. So it is crystal clear that the opposite parties have unjustly retained and enriched with amount payable for the complainant, it is clear cut case of adoption of unfair trade practice and deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. In the given set of facts and circumstances, it would be just and appropriate if the opposite parties are directed to pay foreclosure amount of Rs.4,37,374.88 along with interest @8% per annum from the date of issuance of cheque i.e. 29.01.2019 till actual payment along with composite cost of Rs.10,000/-.

7.                As a result of above discussion, the complaint is allowed with direction to the opposite parties to pay foreclosure amount of Rs.4,37,374.88 along with interest @8% per annum from the date of issuance of cheque i.e. 29.01.2019 till actual payment within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of order. The opposite parties shall further pay composite cost of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) to the complainant. Compliance of the order be made within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of order. Copies of the order be supplied to the parties free of costs as per rules. File be indexed and consigned to record room.

8.                Due to huge pendency of cases, the complaint could not be decided within statutory period.

 

(Monika Bhagat)          (Jaswinder Singh)                      (SanjeevBatra) Member                        Member                                       President         

 

Announced in Open Commission.

Dated:20.04.2023.

Gobind Ram.

Rakesh Kumar Vs ICICI Prudential LIC                         CC/20/284

Present:       Sh. Shamsher Singh Lohat, Advocate for complainant.

                   Sh. V.S. Mand, Advocate for OPs.

 

                   Arguments heard. Vide separate detailed order of today, the complaint is allowed with direction to the opposite parties to pay foreclosure amount of Rs.4,37,374.88 along with interest @8% per annum from the date of issuance of cheque i.e. 29.01.2019 till actual payment within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of order. The opposite parties shall further pay composite cost of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) to the complainant. Compliance of the order be made within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of order. Copies of the order be supplied to the parties free of costs as per rules. File be indexed and consigned to record room.

 

 

(Monika Bhagat)          (Jaswinder Singh)             (SanjeevBatra)

Member                         Member                            President

 

Announced in Open Commission.

Dated:20.04.2023.

Gobind Ram.