Chandigarh

StateCommission

A/63/2021

ICICI Lombard General Insurance - Complainant(s)

Versus

Rajesh Kumar - Opp.Party(s)

Sandeep Suri

18 Jan 2023

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, U.T. CHANDIGARH

[Additional Bench]

 

[1]

Appeal No.	:	A/63/2021
Date  of  Institution	:	31/08/2021
Date   of   Decision	:	18/01/2023

 

 

 

 

 

1]     The Branch Manager, ICICI Lombard General Insurance, Plot No. 149, Industrial Area, Chandigarh – 160002.

 

2]     The Branch Manager, ICICI Bank Limited, Plot No. 143-A, 3 Floor, Near City Emporium Mall, Chandigarh.

 

3]     The Manager Home/Loan Department (Exclamation), ICICI Bank Limited, Regd. Office, ICICI Bank Tower, Near Chakli Circle, Old Padra Road, Vadodara (Gujarat) India.

 

….Appellants

Vs.

 

Rajesh Kumar S/o Sh. Kailash Chand, Resident of 900-D, Type-I, Rail Coach Factory, Kapurthala.

 

…… Respondents

 

BEFORE: MRS. PADMA PANDEY   PRESIDING MEMBER

                PREETINDER SINGH     MEMBER

 

PRESENT	:	Sh. Sandeep Suri, Advocate for the Appellants.
	:	Sh. Sahil Thakur, Advocate for the Respondent.

 

[2]

Appeal No.	:	A/30/2022
Date  of  Institution	:	29/03/2022
Date   of   Decision	:	18/01/2023

 

 

 

 

Rajesh Kumar S/o Sh. Kailash Chand, Resident of 900-D, Type-I, Rail Coach Factory, Kapurthala.

….Appellant

 

Vs.

 

 

1]     The Branch Manager, ICICI Bank Limited, Plot No. 143-A, 3 Floor, Near City Emporium Mall, Chandigarh.

 

2]     The Manager Home/Loan Department (Exclamation), ICICI Bank Limited, Regd. Office, ICICI Bank Tower, Near Chakli Circle, Old Padra Road, Vadodara (Gujarat) India.

 

3]     The Branch Manager, ICICI Lombard General Insurance, Plot No. 149, Industrial Area, Chandigarh – 160002.

 

…. Respondents

 

BEFORE: MRS. PADMA PANDEY   PRESIDING MEMBER

                PREETINDER SINGH     MEMBER

 

PRESENT	:	Sh. Sahil Thakur, Advocate for the Appellant.
	:	Sh. Sandeep Suri, Advocate for the Respondents.

 

PER PADMA PANDEY, PRESIDING MEMBER

 

 

1.         This order shall dispose of two appeals i.e. A/63/2021 filed by the Appellants/Opposite Parties (The Branch Manager, ICICI Lombard General Insurance & Others) and Cross Appeal i.e. A/30/2022 filed by the Appellant/Complainant (Sh. Rajesh Kumar), against the order dated 22.02.2021, rendered by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I, U.T., Chandigarh (for brevity, ‘Ld. Lower Commission), vide which it partly allowed the Consumer Complaint bearing No. CC/273/2018, filed by the Complainant/Respondent (Rajesh Kumar), qua Appellants/Opposite Parties, by passing the following order: -

“13.   In view of the above discussion, the present consumer complaint succeeds and the same is accordingly partly allowed. OPs are directed as under:- 

[i]       to immediately cancel the policies in question and refund the total amount of ₹57,000/- to the Complainant along with interest @ 8% per annum from the date of issuance of the policies i.e. 4.12.2017 till realization.

[b]      to pay an amount of ₹10,000/- to the Complainant as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment to him.

[c]      to pay ₹10,000/- to the Complainant as costs of litigation.

14.    This order be complied with by the OPs within thirty days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which, they shall make the payment of the amounts mentioned at Sr. No. (i) to (ii) above, with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of this order, till realization, apart from compliance of direction at Sr. No. (iii) above.

 

 

2.          Since, the issues involved in the above-said cases, except minor variations, here and there, of law and facts are the same, as such, we are of the considered opinion that these appeals can be adjudicated by passing a consolidated order.

 

3.         Before the Ld. Lower Commission, it was the case of the Respondent/Complainant that on 25.9.2017 he raised a loan of ₹14,32,000/- from Appellant No.1/OP-1. However, Appellant No.1/OP-1 disbursed the loan through cheque amounting to ₹13,75,000/- only and remaining amount of ₹57,000/- was kept by it. After issuance of cheque, Appellant No.1/OP-1 had compelled the Respondent/Complainant to take insurance policy for 10 years from Appellant No.3/OP-3. Appellant No.1/OP-1 had deducted this amount as premium of the policy and it was told it would cover every casualty, medical, normal death and accidental death. However, later on, it was told to have covered only accidental death and not normal death. The Respondent/complainant insisted the Appellants/OPs to hand over the policy, but, after lapse of 70 days, two policies were provided and the Respondent/complainant was shocked to see these policies did not cover every casualty and normal death, but, only accidental death. Premium for the first policy was ₹31,861/- for five years and for second policy ₹25,139/- two years. These were received by post. The Respondent/complainant tried to contact the Appellants/OPs regarding deception, but, no reply was received. Hence, the aforesaid Consumer Complaint was filed before the Ld. Lower Commission, alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the Appellants/Opposite Parties.

 

4.         In the reply filed before the Ld. Lower Commission, while admitting the factual matrix of the case, the Appellants No.1 & 2/OPs 1 & 2 pleaded that the matter is inter se complainant and the insurance company/OP-3 (Appellant No.3 herein).  It was denied Appellants No.1 & 2/OPs 1 & 2 had compelled the Respondent/complainant to purchase the policies. It was also denied Appellant No.1/OP-1 had told policies would cover every casualty, medical, normal death and accidental death. Claimed, the amount of ₹57,000/- was retained on the instructions of the Respondent/ complainant and thereafter transferred to Appellant No.3/OP-3 for issuance of the policies.  On these lines, the cause was sought to be defended and a prayer for dismissal of the Complaint was made.

 

5.         Appellant No.3/OP-3 filed its separate written reply and claimed policies were issued on the basis of the proposal form filled by the Respondent/complainant and the policies covered the accidental death for a period of five years and two years respectively. It was denied any assurance was given the policies will cover every benefit of medical, natural death etc. and it was for 10 years. Claimed the matter is inter se Respondent/complainant and Appellants No.1 & 2/OPs 1 & 2 and no relief can be granted against Appellant No.3/OP-3 keeping in view the proposal forms filled in by the Respondent/complainant.

 

6.         On appraisal of the pleadings of the parties and the evidence adduced on the record, Ld. Lower Commission partly accepted the Complaint and issued directions to the Appellants/Opposite Parties as noticed in the opening para of this order.  

 

7.         Aggrieved against the aforesaid order passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I, U.T. Chandigarh, the instant Appeals have been filed by the Appellants/Opposite Parties (The Branch Manager, ICICI Lombard General Insurance & Others), as well as by the Appellant/Complainant (Sh. Rajesh Kumar) in Cross Appeal i.e. A/30/2022.

 

8.         We have heard the Learned Counsel for the Parties and have gone through the evidence and record of the case with utmost care, along with the written arguments advanced on behalf of the parties.

 

9.         After giving our thoughtful consideration, to the contentions raised and material on record, we are of the considered opinion, that the instant Appeals are liable to be dismissed for the reasons to be recorded hereinafter.

 

10.         It is the case of the Complainant/Respondent that Appellant No.1/OP-1 compelled him to take the policies in question which would cover everything i.e. every casualty, medical, normal death and accidental death. There is no dispute about the fact that the loan was raised on 25.09.2017 while the policies were issued on 04.12.2017 (after more than 2 months), which reinforced the claim of the Respondent/complainant that even after deduction of ₹57,000/- the policies were not issued and he had to contact Appellant No.1/OP-1 time & again and finally, they issued the policies on 4.12.2017. On receipt of the policies by post, the Complainant was shocked to know that the same covered only accidental death and not every casualty, medical and normal death.  Delayed issuance of the policies after a gap of more than two months and immediate reaction of the complainant itself shows that he was misinformed by Appellant/OP-1 with regard to the coverage of the policies. On these precincts, while recoding its finding, Ld. Lower Commission did not agree with the stand taken by Appellants/OPs 1 & 2 to the effect that the default, if any, was made by OP-3 and the Respondent/complainant had to contact Appellant No.3/OP-3. To our mind also, there was no occasion with the Respondent/complainant to contact Appellant No.3/OP-3 as he had raised the loan from Appellant No.1/OP-1 and it was Appellant No.1/OP-1 who had deducted the amount of ₹57,000/- and later on transmitted the same to Appellant/OP-3. The case in hand, is a clear cut case of misinformation with regard to the risk covered under the policies i.e. accidental death only though the complainant was told the policies would be issued with the coverage of every casualty, medical and normal death as well. Record shows, Appellant No.3/OP-3 did not take option of the Respondent/complainant with regard to cancellation of the policies so issued within 15 days as per the relevant rules/policies. Ld. Lower Commission has thus, rightly held that Appellants/OPs had hoodwinked the Respondent/complainant with regard to the terms & conditions and coverage of the benefits explained and actual policies issued. 

 

11.         It is demonstrable from a reading of the impugned Order of the Ld. Lower Commission that it is certainly not an order passed without reasons or without applying the judicious mind. The facts and circumstances of the case have been gone into, weighed and considered, and due analysis of the same has been made.

 

12.         Now coming to the enhancement in the award passed by the Ld. Lower Commission, as sought by the Appellant/Complainant, in his appeal bearing No.30 of 2022, we are of the considered opinion that on account of aforesaid deficiency in rendering service and unfair trade practice on the part of the Respondents/Opposite Parties, the Appellant/complainant was adequately compensated to the extent of harassment and mental agony, which he suffered, along with the cost of proceedings. No ground for enhancement of compensation and cost of litigation is made out. Needless to mention here that the Consumer Foras, are not meant to enrich the consumers, by awarding exaggerated compensation, at the cost of the service provider. To our mind, nothing more is payable to the Appellant/Complainant. 

 

13.         No other point was urged by the Counsel for the Parties.

 

14.         In the wake of the position, as sketched out above, we do not see any strain of perversity discernible from the order which may occasion to vitiate the same. We are, therefore, dissuaded to interfere with the impugned order rendered by the Ld. Lower Commission. The appeals  being bereft of merit are accordingly dismissed. The order of Ld. Lower Commission is upheld.

 

15.         Certified copy of this order be placed in Cross Appeal No.30 of 2022 titled as “Rajesh Kumar Vs. The Branch Manager ICICI Bank Ltd. & Others.”.

 

16.         In view of the present Appeals being dismissed, the pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of accordingly.

 

17.         Certified Copies of this order be sent to the parties, free of charge.

 

18.         The file be consigned to Record Room, after completion.

Pronounced

18^th January, 2023                                                                   

                                         Sd/-                         

                                                                (PADMA PANDEY)

PRESIDING MEMBER

 

 

 

Sd/-

(PREETINDER SINGH)

MEMBER

 

“Dutt”