Karnataka

StateCommission

A/1118/2016

The General Manager - Complainant(s)

Versus

Latha K R - Opp.Party(s)

Raman V

19 Feb 2024

ORDER

Date of Filing :20.05.2016

Date of Disposal : 19.02.2024

 

BEFORE THE KARNATAKA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BENGALURU (PRINCIPAL BENCH)

 

DATED:19.02.2024

 

PRESENT

 

HON’BLE Mr JUSTICE HULUVADI G RAMESH : PRESIDENT

 

Mr K BSANGANNANAVAR: JUDICIAL MEMBER

 

Mrs DIVYASHREE M:LADY MEMBER

 

 

APPEAL No.1118/2016

 

1. The General Manager

    ING Vysya Life Insurance Company Ltd.,

    ING Vysya House,

    5^th Floor, No.22,

    M G Road

    Bengaluru-560 001

    Presently known as

    EXIDE Life Insurance Company Ltd.,

    (Formerly known as ING Vysya Life

    Insurance Company Ltd.,)

    3^rd Floor, J P Techno Park

    No.3/1, Millers Road

    Bengluru-560 001

 

2. ING Vysya Life Insurance Company Ltd.,

    Represented by its Manager

    Shivakumar Swamy Circle

    B H Road, Tumkur Town

    Tumkur

    Presently known as

    EXIDE Life Insurance Company Ltd.,

    (Formerly known as ING Vysya Life

    Insurance Company Ltd.,)

    Shivakumar Swamy Circle

    B H Road, Tumkur Town

    Tumkur                                                                     Appellants

    (By Mr Raman V Advocate)

 

-Versus-

Smt K.R  Latha

W/o H G Ravi Kumar

Proprietor Shami Medical

& General Stores

Kalluveeranahalli Village

Urdigere Hobli

Urdigere – 572 140

Tumkur Taluk                                                                Respondent

(By Mr D S Hosmath, Advocate)

 

:ORDER:

 

Mr JUSTICE HULUVADI G RAMESH : PRESIDENT

 

1.       This Appeal is filed under Section 15 of Consumer Protection Act 1986 by the OPs, aggrieved by the Order dated 13.04.2016 passed in Consumer Complaint No.16/2014 on the file of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Tumkur (hereinafter referred to as District Forum).

2.       Heard the arguments of the learned Counsels on record.

3.       The District Forum after enquiring into the matter, allowed the Complaint in part on the ground that OPs did not produce any piece of paper like any Postal Acknowledgement or any Bank Statement showing whether the amount is credited to the account of the Complainant and accordingly, directed the OP to pay a sum of Rs.40,000/- together with interest @ 6% p.a from 20.03.2010 to till realisation and Rs.3,000/- towards litigation cost to the Complainant within 30 days from the Date of the Order.

4.       Aggrieved by this Order, OPs are in Appeal inter-alia contending amongst other grounds, that the Respondent/Complainant instituted the case falsely by suppressing the fact of receiving Rs.40,000/- and thus the Complaint itself was frivolous and vexatious and made with an intention to make financial gains from the Appellant Company.   The Impugned Order is not based on sound principles of law and established facts.

          OPs further contended that the documents produced along with Appeal Memorandum evidencing that payment of cheque Rs.40,000/- by the Appellants and receipt of payment by the Respondent/Complainant. Thus, the Appellant Company has not committed any deficiency of service or unfair trade practice within the meaning of the CP Act 1986 and therefore, seeking to set aside the Impugned Order by allowing the Appeal.

5.       Perused the Impugned Order, grounds of Appeal, documents produced along with Appeal Memorandum and secured records from the District Forum.

6.       It is not in dispute that, the Complainant obtained a Policy bearing No.00006572 from the OP on 14.03.2002, viz., ‘Maximising Life Money Back Plan with profits’, the risk coverage term opted by the Life Assured was 16 years, to be paid annually for a premium term of 16 years and the Sum Assured under the Policy was Rs.2 Lakhs and paid the stipulated Premiums towards the said Policy.  It is also not in dispute that, the Policy being under Money Bank plan, as per Term of the Plan, 40% of the Sum Assured, i.e, Rs.40,000/- to be paid to the Life Assured at the gap of 4 years from the Date of commencement of the Policy and the 1^st instalment of Rs.40,000/- on 20.03.2006, 2^nd  on 20.03.2010 and 3^rd on 20.03.2010 and thereafter the OP paid a sum of Rs.24,408.65 by way of crediting to the account of the Complainant on 08.05.2014.

7.       The crux of the matter is only with regard to whether the 2nd instalment of survival benefit of Rs.40,000/- payable by the OPs have been received by the Complainant or not.   On perusal of the document Annexure-A11 annexed to the Appeal Memorandum, it is seen that it is the document of OP confirming about the Cheque No.898035  for Rs.40,000/- was honoured by debit it from the Account No.204011003656 to Smt K R Latha/Complainant.  Likewise, the document Annexure-A12, is the Pay-in-slip dated 24.03.2010 of  SBM, Tumkur reveals the deposit of Cheque No.898035  for Rs.40,000/- of ING Vysya Bank Tumkur Account No.204011003656 drawn for a sum of Rs.40,000/-, in the Account No.54027598757 of K R Latha. Similarly, the Annexure-13, the Bank statement of ING Vysya Bank dated 25.03.2010 discloses the credit of Rs.40,000/- to the beneficiary Mrs KRLatha and also debit of Rs.40,000/-to the Bank’s A/c and Annexure-14, Bank statement of SBM, Siddaganga Extension Branch of Mrs K R Latha also reveals Credit of Rs.40,000/- and withdrawal of cash of Rs.40,000/- on 27.03.2010 by using a self cheque.  Thus, these documents are suffice to hold that, a sum of Rs.40,000/- as 2^nd Survival Benefit has been paid by the Appellants/OPs and so also  receipt of the same  by the Respondent/Complainant.

8.       In view of above said reasons, the Respondent/Complainant is not entitled for payment of the 2nd instalment of Survival Benefit one more time, since she has already received the payment from the OPs.  In the circumstance, the Impugned Order requires to be interfered with, as the OPs have not committed any deficiency in service. In the result, we proceed to pass the following

O R D E R

          Appeal is allowed with no Order as to costs. Consequently, Impugned Order dated 13.04.2016 passed in Consumer Complaint No.16/2014 on the file of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Tumkur is herby set aside and the Complaint stands Dismissed.

The Statutory Deposit in this Appeal is directed to be refunded to the Appellant on proper identification by his Advocate.

Return the LCR forthwith to the District Commission.

 

 

Send a copy of this Order to the District Commission, as well as to the parties concerned, immediately.

 

 

Lady Member                  Judicial Member                     President

*s