STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA
First Appeal No.345 of 2017
Date of Institution: 27.03.2017
Date of final hearing: 24.04.2023
Date of pronouncement: 01.05.2023
1. Reliance Life Insurance Co. Limited, City Centre Plaza Building, Opp IB College, GT Road, Panipat through its local Branch Manager.
2. Reliance Life Insurance Co. Ltd., 2nd Floor, Sector 70, Mohali-160060 through its Branch Manager.
…..Appellants
Versus
1. Smt. Saroj Devi R/o village Singhu, Narela, Delhi at present Village Sevli, Tehsil and Distt. Sonepat.
2. Aasha Devi Advisor of Reliance Life Insurance Co. Limited, Residence Cum office Village Sevli, Tehsil and Distt. Sonepat.
…..Respondents
CORAM: Naresh Katyal, Judicial Member
Present:- Mr. Rohit Goswami, Advocate for the appellants.
Mr. Nitesh Singhi, Advocate for the respondent No.1.
Services of respondent No.2 already dispensed with.
ORDER
NARESH KATYAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER:
As per office report; this appeal has been filed with a delay of 141 days. There is an application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condoning the delay, wherein, delay has been mentioned of 102 days. The integral part of the application is that: order dated 07.10.2016 was received by Advocate of appellant on 28.10.2016, who further sent it to head office on 05.11.2016. Head office further sent the same to its legal department for getting legal opinion and it was decided to prefer appeal. A fact cannot be disputed that some-time is normally consumed in process of filing appeal and to obtain prior approval of competent authority where any appeal is to be filed by some department. This principle is equally applicable where applicant is private corporate house as it is so in present case. Hence, in opinion of this Commission the cause projected in application which is supported by affidavit of authorized signatory for condoning the delay do constitute sufficient cause. Hence, application for condonation the delay in filing of appeal is allowed. Delay in filing of this appeal is condoned.
2. Challenge in this appeal is to the illegality of order dated 07.10.2016 of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Sonepat (In short “District Commission”) vide which it has allowed complaint case No.333 of 2015.
3. In brief, complainant has alleged that she was told about a plan of insurance policy by OP No. 3. Plan is: to pay premium for three years, or one fixed time premium. After three years, depositor can withdraw the policy and receive amount of policy mentioned therein, or surrender the policy after three years and receive the deposited amount plus market value. Complainant accepted the plan of life insurance and paid Rs.2,50,000/- for her insurance, yearly on 17.03.2009. She was insured by OPs No. 1 and 2 vide policy No.14064052 on 17.03.2009 for basic assured sum of Rs.12.5 lacs. Complainant deposited Rs.2,50,000/- for her policy for one time fixed premium for three years. After three years, complainant went to office of OP No.1, who assured her to pay after one week with market value when she surrenders her policy. On 03.04.2013, she surrendered her policy. After one week, when she went to office of OP No.1, payment of amount was denied to her. After persuation, OP No.1 gave Rs.1,93,000/- of surrendered policy on 22.10.2013, whereas amount of policy as per market value was Rs.2,39,050/- on 03.04.2013. OPs No.1 and 2 wrongly with-held the amount of Rs.57,000/- of complainant, which amounts to deficiency in service on their part towards her. With these allegations, she filed complaint.
4. OPs No. 1 & 2 their defence have submitted that policy was issued to complainant by their office at Mumbai, whereas proposal form was submitted in the office at Mohali. Complainant is resident of VPO Singhu, Narela-Delhi and she had intentionally written address of Sonepat just to get jurisdiction of this Forum. It is pleaded that money having being invested in cumulative benefits, complaint is not maintainable. It is time barred. OP issued policy No.14064052 on 17.03.2009 for policy term 10 years, with premium paying term of 10 years, for which, complainant has to pay annual premium of Rs.2,50,000/-. Complainant was within her rights to get policy cancelled within 15 days from its receipt, but she failed to do so. She never visited the office of the OP No.1 on 03.04.2013. Instead OPs No.1 and 2 served letter dated 09.06.2012 intimating the factum of termination of the policy, but complainant opted, not to revert on same. Due to non-deposit of premium, policy in question was foreclosed as per terms and conditions of policy on 19.03.2012 and amount of Rs.1,93,333.7 paise was transferred in her account on 22.10.2013. It is denied that OPs gave her amount to complainant as alleged. There is no deficiency in service of any kind on the part of OPs No.1 and 2. On these pleas, dismissal of complaint has been prayed.
5. OP No.3 in her written statement has submitted that she met complainant at her house where plan of life insurance was explained which is only for three years. Complainant accepted the plan of life insurance for fixed one time and paid Rs.2,50,000/- for her insurance yearly on 17.03.2009. She was insured by OPs No.1 and 2 vide policy No.14064052 on 17.03.2009. Complainant deposited amount of Rs.2,50,000/- for her policy for one time fixed premium for three years. There is no deficiency in service on her part and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
6. On analyzing rival submissions learned District Commission, Sonepat vide order dated 07.10.2016 has allowed the complaint, thereby directing OPs No.1 and 2 to make payment of Rs.57,000/- to complainant within period of 60 days from the date of order, otherwise, amount shall fetch interest @9% p.a. from the date of order, till realization.
7. Feeling aggrieved therefrom, OPs No. 1 and 2-appellants have preferred this appeal.
8. Learned counsel for appellants has urged that deduction of Rs.57,000/- by appellants was legally tenable and impugned order dated 07.10.2016 to pay this amount to complainant, is erroneous. Amount as admissible, which was surrendered value of policy, has been paid to complainant and there is no deficiency in service of appellants/OPs No. 1 and 2. It is further urged that complaint filed before learned District Commission was time barred. It was instituted on 09.09.2015 whereas, policy of complainant was foreclosed on 19.03.2012 and learned District Commission has failed to consider this aspect. On these submissions learned counsel for appellants has urged for acceptance of appeal.
9. Refuting the contentions, learned counsel for respondent No. 1 has contended that impugned order passed by learned District Commission is justified on given facts and evidence and same does not warrant any interference in this appeal.
10. This Commission has critically and subjectively analyzed rival submissions put before it.
11. There is no merit in the contention of learned counsel for appellants that complaint instituted before learned District Commission was time barred. Policy in question was foreclosed on 19.03.2012. There is letter dated 19.03.2015 (Annexure C-3) written by appellant to complainant. This letter recites that surrender amount was given late after some technical reasons. As per stance of appellants in written statement; Rs.1,93,333.7 paise was transferred in the account of complainant on 22.10.2013. Meaning thereby, after foreclosure of policy on 19.03.2012, more than one year 7 months have been consumed by appellants to transfer the amount (Rs.1,93,333.7 paise) under policy in the account of complainant. Matter does not end here. Even communication (Annexure C-3) of appellant to complainant is more than nearly one year and six months thereafter. This communication was addressed to her on 19.03.2015 whereas amount was transferred in her account on 22.10.2013. Complaint was instituted on 09.09.2015. If limitation is reckoned from the date when complainant had been conveyed by appellants of this letter (19.03.2015) then, this complaint is filed within limitation. Even if, limitation is reckoned from the date (22.10.2013) when amount of Rs.1,93,333.7 paise was transferred in her account, then also, this complaint which has been instituted under old Act, is within limitation. Consequently, this contention of learned counsel for appellant does not hold any ground and same stood repelled.
12. Undisputedly, complainant deposited Rs.2,50,000/- towards premium in relation to her life insurance policy No. 14064052. Her policy was foreclosed on 19.03.2012. Against Rs.2,50,000/-, Rs.1,93,333.7 paise has been transferred in her account. During the course of arguments in this appeal, learned counsel for appellants has been impressed upon to satisfy this Commission about the details of deductions to the tune of Rs.57,000/- made by them, while releasing amount (Rs.1,93,333.7 paise) under policy, but learned counsel for appellants could not explain the same. Needless to say that appellants were required to furnish details in this regard in their defence, before learned District Commission and written statement filed by them sans such details. Obviously, less amount, under insurance policy in question, has been credited in the account of complainant. Rightly learned District Commission has directed the appellants to make payment of Rs.57,000/- to complainant. Directions issued by learned District Commission cannot be found, faulted. This being so, it is held that there is no illegality or perversity in impugned order dated 07.10.2016 passed by learned District Commission, Sonepat. It is accordingly affirmed and maintained. This appeal, being devoid of merits, stands dismissed.
13. The statutory amount of Rs.25,000/- deposited at the time of filing the appeal be refunded to the appellants against proper receipt and identification in accordance with rules, after the expiry of period of appeal/revision, if any.
14. Applications pending, if any stand disposed of in terms of the aforesaid judgment.
15. A copy of this judgment be provided to all the parties free of cost as mandated by the Consumer Protection Act, 1986/2019. The judgment be uploaded forthwith on the website of the commission for the perusal of the parties.
16. File be consigned to record room.
Date of pronouncement: 01st May, 2023
Naresh Katyal Judicial Member
Addl. Bench-II
D.K
