| Final Order / Judgement | DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BATHINDA C.C. No. 306 of 12-11-2018 Decided on : 30-03-2022 Surinder Kumar aged about 46 years, Director, Danewalia Timbers Pvt. Ltd., W No. 17, Village Road, Mansa. ........Complainant
Versus Religare Finvest Limited through its Manager Branch Office 2739-B, Ground Floor, Back Side Grover Complex, Near Hanuman Chowk, GT Road, Bathinda. Aegon Life Insurance Company Limited through its MD Building No. 3, 3rd Floor, Unit No. 1 NESCO IT Park, Western Express Highway, Goregaon (East) Mumbai
.......Opposite parties
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 QUORUM Sh. Kanwar Sandeep Singh, President Sh. Shivdev Singh, Member Smt. Paramjeet Kaur, Member Present For the complainant : Sh. Sanjay Goyal, Advocate For opposite parties : Sh. Deepak Das, Advocate, for OP No. 1 Sh. N K Tundwal, Advocate, for OP No. 2. ORDER Kanwar Sandeep Singh, President The complainant Surinder Kumar (here-in-after referred to as complainant) has filed this complaint U/s 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (Now C.P. Act, 2019, here-in after referred to as 'Act') before this Forum (Now Commission) against Religare Finvest Ltd., and another (here-in-after referred to as opposite parties). Briefly stated the case of the complainant is that he purchased one insurance policy bearing No.130313801946 dated 31-03-2013 for Rs. 5,00,000/- from opposite party No. 2 through opposite party No. 1. It is alleged that complainant made a request for cancellation of policy and refund of fund value. Accordingly, opposite party No. 2 terminated the policy and issued cheque for Rs.7,65,002.78 as per fund value outstanding as on 31-03-13. Since the original policy documents was lost by complainant, the opposite party No. 2, as per rules, issued cheque for Rs. 7,65,002.78 bearing No. 242933 drawn on HDFC Bank limited in the name of opposite party No. 1 through whom the said policy was purchased, being insurance agent, and sent the same at the address of the complainant. It is alleged that opposite party No.2 assured the complainant that according to their internal agreement with opposite party No.1, firstly complainant has to send the original cheque to opposite party No.1 and then opposite party No. 1 shall issue the cheque of same amount from his account in the name of complainant. It is alleged that complainant in good faith, handed over the original cheque for Rs.7,65,002.78 to opposite party No.1 vide covering letter dated 07-05-2018 and opposite party No.1 received and acknowledged the same under his signatures and seal and assured the complainant that he will pay the amount within three working days. It is also alleged that after seven days, complainant visited the office of opposite party No.1 and told them that he has not received cheque for Rs. 765002.78. The opposite party No.1 told that complainant obtained two loans bearing No. XMORBTH00046676 and XMORBTH00034333, although same are closed but at the time of closing the loan accounts, complainant obtained some rebate in the loan, as such now opposite party No. 1 will not issue the cheque of insurance amount of complainant. The complainant alleged that opposite party No. 1 can not retain the insurance amount of complainant due to any other contract because insurance policy was having no connection with any loan. Even otherwise also, complainant paid the entire loan amount and even no due certificate was issued by opposite party No.1 on 29-05-2017. All the sale deeds etc., regarding mortgage properties were also returned and nothing remained due qua loan but still the amount of Rs. 7,65,002.78 which was handed over by opposite party No. 2 to opposite party No. 1 has been illegally withheld by opposite party No.1 without any justification. The complainant requested opposite party No. 1 to refund the amount, but opposite No. 1 flatly refused to do the same. Due to this wrong act and conduct of opposite party No.1, complainant suffered mental tension and harassment for which complainant claims compensation to the tune of Rs. 1,00,000/-. On this backdrop of facts, the complainant prayed for directions to the opposite party to pay to complainant Rs. 765002.78 with interest @ 12% from 17-05-2018 and also pay compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- in addition to Rs.25,000/- as litigation expenses. Upon notice, the opposite parties put an appearance through their respective counsel. The opposite party No. 1 has pleaded in its written reply that complainant availed loan facility from opposite party No. 1 which was repayable in installments. The complainant failed to honour the installments as a result of which there were over dues as a matter of irregular repayment. The amount paid by complainant was also adjusted towards the loan outstanding of the complainant. So, there is no amount which is payable by the opposite party No. 1 towards the complainant. The opposite party No. 2 in its separate written reply raised preliminary objections that no cause of action has arisen against opposite party No. 2 and it has been unnecessarily dragged into this vexatious litigation. That no relief claimed from opposite party No. 2. That the complainant has concealed and suppressed material and relevant facts of the case and twisted and distorted the same to suit his own convenience. That the complaint is devoid of any material particulars and has been filed merely to harass and gain undue advantage and unjustified monies from opposite party No. 2. That the complainant by his own act and conduct is estopped from filing the complaint. That the complaint is barred as it is filed after the period of limitation of two years. On merits, it has been pleaded that the complainant submitted a duly filled and executed Proposal Form and opposite party No. 2 after receiving the proposal form issued Policy number 130313801946 in accordance with the proposal form submitted by complainant. The policy was assigned in favour of opposite party No. 1 by complainant himself. As per terms and conditions of the policy document, the policy holder can assign the policy availed by it. It has also been pleaded that complainant requested for the surrender of the said policy and accordingly opposite party No. 2 terminated the policy and refunded the surrender value of policy. As the policy was assigned in favour of the opposite party No 1 by the complainant, the cheque of Rs 7,65,002.78 was made in the name of opposite party No 1. Upon payment of the amount, the opposite party No. 2 was discharged of its liabilities under the said policy and nothing survives contractually between the complainant and the Insurance Company. Therefore, the present complaint as against the opposite party No. 2 does not survive in law as well as in fact. The opposite party No. 2 pleaded that opposite party No 1 and opposite party No. 2 are two different legal entities and opposite party No. 2 is not in anyway responsible for the acts of opposite party No 1. The opposite party No. 2 is not aware as to when the complainant had deposited the cheque of Rs. 765002.78 with opposite party No. 1 and or when the opposite party No. 1 refused to refund the same to the complainant. Upon payment of the surrender amount, all contractual obligations between the complainant and the opposite party No. 2 came to an end. After controverting all other averments, the opposite party No. 2 prayed for dismissal of complaint. In support of his complaint, the complainant has tendered into evidence his affidavit dated 5-11-18 (Ex. C-1), photocopy of letter (Ex. C-2), photocopy of acknowledgement (Ex. C-3), photocopy of letters (Ex. C-4 to Ex. C-7) and photocopy of legal notice (Ex. C-8). In order to rebut the evidence of complainant, opposite party No. 2 tendered into evidence photocpy of proposal form (Ex. OP-2/1), photocopy of policy provisions (Ex. OP-2/2), photocopy of questionnaire (Ex. OP-2/3), photocopy of authority letter (Ex. OP-2/4) and affidavit dated 28-1-18 of Ashish Ovalekar (Ex. OP-2/5). No evidence produced by opposite party No. 1. The learned counsel for the parties reiterated their stand as taken in their respective pleadings. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record. It is admitted fact of the parties that complainant purchased Insurance policy bearing No. 130313801946 dated 31-3-2013 for Rs. 5.00 Lacs from opposite party No. 2 through opposite party No. 1. The said policy was assigned in favour of opposite party No. 1 by complainant. It is also admitted fact of the parties that complainant vide letter dated 7-5-2018 (Ex. C-2) requested the opposite party No. 2 to cancel the policy in question as he forclosed the loan accounts bearing No. XMORBTH00046676 and XMORBTH00034333 and in response to request of complainant, opposite party No. 2 issued cheque in favour of opposite party No. 1 bearing No. 242933 of Rs.765002.78 being the amount of fund value and sent to complainant. The allegation of the complainant is that he handed over the cheque in question to opposite party No. 1, but opposite party No. 1 has not returned the said amount to him. The opposite party No. 1 in its written reply pleaded that complainant availed loan facility from opposite party No. 1 which was repayable in installments. The complainant failed to honour the installments as a result of which there were over dues as a matter of irregular repayment. The amount paid by complainant was also adjusted towards the loan outstanding of the complainant. Thus, as per opposite party No. 1 no amount is payable by the opposite party No. 1 towards the complainant but opposite party No. 1 has not produced any evidence to prove its version. A perusal of file reveals that complainant vide letter dated 7-5-2018 (Ex. C-2) requested the opposite party No. 2 to refund the fund value of policy in question as his loan account Nos. XMORBTH00046676 and XMORBTH00034333 have already been closed. In response to this letter of complainant, opposite party No. 2 vide letter Ex. C-4 sent cheque of Rs. 7,65,002.78 to opposite party No. 1 since the policy in question was assigned in favour of opposite party No. 1. The version of opposite party No. 1 that amount paid by complainant was adjusted towards overdue amount outstanding against loan accounts of complainant is belied by the evidence of complainant. The complainant has placed on file No Due Certificates against both the aforesaid loan accounts dated 29-3-2017 (Ex. C-6 & Ex. C-7) which proved that loan accounts of the complainants were closed and No Due Certificates were issued on 29-3-2017 whereas fund value of the policy in question was paid by opposite party No. 2 on 31-3-2018 (Ex. C-3 & Ex. C-4). Thus, it is proved on file that prior to cancellation of policy in question and payment of its fund value, loan accounts of the complainants were closed and No Due Certificates in this regard were already issued. The opposite party No. 1 failed to rebut this evidence of complainant. The opposite party No. 1 was bound to return the amount of fund value of policy in question to complainant but it failed to do so and retained the amount unncessarily by taking false plea. Hence, deficiency in service on the part of opposite party No. 1 stands proved. In view of what has been discussed above, this complaint is partly allowed with Rs.10,000/- as cost and compensation against opposite party No. 1 and stands dismissed qua opposite party No. 2. The opposite party No. 1 is directed to pay to complainant Rs. 7,65,000/- (rounded off) with interest @9% p.a. from the date of its payment to opposite party No. 1 till realization. The compliance of this order be made by opposite party No. 1 within 45 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. The complaint could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of cases. Copy of order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost and file be consigned to the record. Announced : 30-3-2022 (Kanwar Sandeep Singh) President (Shivdev Singh) Member (Paramjeet Kaur) Member
| |
