Full Judgment
Dev Raj, Member:
1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 14.10.2013, rendered by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, UT, Chandigarh (hereinafter to be called as the District Forum only) vide which it dismissed the complaint filed by the appellant-complainant.
2. In brief, the facts of the case, are that the husband of the complainant, namely, Late Sh. Binod Kumar Balmiki availed of loan facility from Opposite Party No.1, and, as such, loan of Rs.3,00,000/- was sanctioned vide letter dated 22.10.2012 (Annexure C-1) for meeting the expenses in respect of his daughters marriage. It was stated that the said loan was to be repaid in 60 EMIs of Rs.7,177/- each w.e.f. 21.11.2012. It was further stated that Opposite Party No.1 deducted a sum of Rs.3,604/- as premium on 31.10.2012, towards Life Insurance Policy, in the name of the husband of the complainant, to be provided by Opposite Party No.2. It was further stated that the husband of the complainant expired on 27.11.2012, and the factum of death was also intimated to Opposite Party No.1. It was further stated that the complainant approached Opposite Party No.1 and requested it, to provide her Insurance Policy documents, and pay the insurance claim to her being the legal heir of her late husband. It was further stated that neither any heed was paid by Opposite Party No.1 to the requests of the complainant, nor any details of Insurance Policy were supplied to her. It was further stated that even after complying with all the formalities, Opposite Party No.1, kept on delaying the matter, on one pretext or the other. It was further stated that being not satisfied with the conduct of the Opposite Parties, the complainant sent a legal notice dated 16.04.2013 calling upon Opposite Party No.1, to disclose the insured amount, for which deduction of Rs.3,604/- as premium was made. It was further stated that the aforesaid acts of the Opposite Parties, amounted to deficiency, in rendering service and indulgence into unfair trade practice. When the grievance of the complainant was not redressed, left with no alternative, a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter to be called as the œAct? only), was filed, seeking directions to the Opposite Parties to supply the documents/cover note of the Insurance Policy; pay the insurance amount; pay compensation for mental agony and physical harassment besides Rs.10,000/- as cost of litigation.
3. Opposite Party No.1, in its written version, admitted that the deceased husband of the complainant approached it for financial assistance to meet out the personal requirement of his family, and he was sanctioned Personal Loan-Express Credit to the tune of Rs.3 Lacs, vide sanction letter dated 22.10.2012. It was stated that he was also provided a RiNn Raksha Policy of Insurance of Opposite Party No.2, covering the entire loan repayment tenure. It was admitted that the a cheque No.601982 dated 31.10.2012 of Rs.3,604/- against premium alongwith the proposal form was given by the deceased husband of the complainant to Opposite Party No.2, which was to perform its obligation as per the terms and conditions. It was further stated that, as a matter of fact, the other cheques given on the said date were duly presented by Opposite Party No.2 except the cheque in question. It was further stated that after presentation of the cheque, in question, for payment of premium, the policy cover, if applicable, was to be provided by Opposite Party No.2, as per the Rules and procedures. It was further stated that the complainant did not submit any document like death certificate etc. and the legal heir certificate in support of her contention. It was further stated that the Policy was for the adjustment of loan account in case of any exigency with the life of the borrower/insured. It was further stated that the complainant had personally visited the branch of Opposite Party No.1 at the Punjab University, where she was clarified every situation and development with regard to the status of the loan and process of Insurance cover note, adjustment of loan account. It was further stated that Opposite Party No.1 had acted, in the right direction, under the prevailing circumstances, and had always been ready and willing to perform its obligation at every stage. It was further stated that the matter, if any, involved, was the performance of contractual obligation, on the part of Opposite Party No.2. It was further stated that neither there was any deficiency, in rendering service, on the part of the Opposite Party No.1 nor did it indulge into unfair trade practice. The remaining averments, were denied, being wrong.
4. Opposite Party No.2, in its written version, stated that the amount paid to the Bank, could not be considered as the amount paid to the Insurance Company. It was stated that Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 were separate and different legal entities and Opposite Party No.2 was not responsible for the acts of omission or commission on the part of Opposite Party No.1. It was further stated that the complainant had not received any proposal or premium from Sh. Binod Kumar Balmiki and hence, there was no insurance cover on the life of said Binod Kumar Balmiki. It was further stated that, as per the records, Opposite Party No.2, neither received any proposal nor premium from Sh. Binod Kumar Balmiki. It was further stated that the complainant did not produce any proof of receipt/encashment of the said amount or any proposal. It was further stated that assuming but not accepting, if the said cheque and proposal would have been received, still the same did not amount to acceptance of risk or issuance of insurance cover. It was further stated that under Section 64VB of the Insurance Act, no insurer shall assume any risk in India in respect of any insurance business until and unless the premium payable was received by him in advance. It was further stated that the advance payment of the premium under a Policy was not only a contractual obligation but also a legal mandate for the continued assumption of risk under a Policy of Insurance. It was further stated that Opposite Party No.2, never received any premium for any Insurance cover, on the life of deceased husband of the complainant. It was further stated that neither there was any deficiency, in rendering service, on the part of the Opposite Party No.2 nor did it indulge into unfair trade practice. The remaining averments, were denied, being wrong.
5. The Parties led evidence, in support of their case.
6. After hearing the Counsel for the contesting parties, and, on going through the evidence and record of the case, the District Forum, dismissed the complaint as stated above, in the opening para of the instant order.
7. Feeling aggrieved, the instant appeal, has been filed by the appellant/complainant.
8. We have heard the Counsel for the parties and have gone through the evidence and record of the case, carefully.
9. The Counsel for the appellant/complainant submitted that husband of the appellant/complainant raised loan of Rs.3 Lacs, from Opposite Party No.1, and an amount of Rs.3,604/- on account of premium towards Life Insurance Policy, was deducted on 31.10.2012. It was further submitted that the finding of the District Forum, regarding detailed evidence and production of witnesses, before the Civil Court is perverse. It was further submitted that respondent No.1/Opposite Party No.1, admitted in no ambiguous terms and it collected and delivered the cheque of premium for Insurance Policy to respondent No.2/Opposite Party No.2.
10. The Counsel for the respondent No.1/Opposite Party No.1 submitted that the premium to the tune of Rs.3,604/- was deducted (Annexure R-1/4) and the further action regarding issuance of Policy was to be taken by Opposite Party No.2. It was further submitted that the matter, if any, involved, was the performance of contractual obligation, on the part of Opposite Party No.2.
11. The Counsel for respondent No.2/Opposite Party No.2 submitted that Opposite Party No.2 neither received any proposal nor premium, for any insurance cover from Sh. Binod Kumar Balmiki, deceased, husband of the complainant. It was further submitted that the complainant did not produce any proof of receipt/encashment of the said cheque amount or any proposal. It was further submitted that the advance payment of the premium under a Policy was not only a contractual obligation but also a legal mandate for the continued assumption of risk under a Policy of Insurance. It was further argued that Opposite Party No.2 never received any premium for any Insurance cover on the life of deceased husband of the complainant.
12. The case of the appellant/complainant is that a sum of Rs.3604/- as premium on 31.10.2012, towards life insurance policy, in the name of her husband, to be provided by Opposite Party No.2, was deducted by Opposite Party No.1. It was submitted that her husband expired on 27.11.2012 and the factum of his death was also intimated to Opposite Parties, requesting to provide Insurance Policy documents, and to pay the insurance claim.
13. Opposite Party No.1, in its written statement, has admitted that cheque No.601982 dated 31.10.2012 in the sum of Rs.3604/- against premium alongwith proposal form was given by the deceased husband of the complainant to Opposite Party No.2, which was to perform its obligation. It has also been submitted that the cheque in question was not presented by Opposite Party No.2.
14. On other hand, the case of Opposite Party No.2 is that the amount paid to the Bank could not be considered as the amount paid to the Insurance Company. It was stated that Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 are separate and different legal entities, and Opposite Party No.2, was not responsible for the acts of omission and commission on the part of Opposite Party No.1. It was specifically averred that neither Opposite Party No.2 received alleged amount of Rs.3,604/-, nor the proposal form. It was also averred that the complainant did not produce any proof of receipt/encashment of the said cheque nor the complainant submitted the documents like death certificate etc. in support of her contentions.
15. Clearly, no evidence that cheque for Rs.3,604/- was debited from the account of complainant/her deceased husband has come on record. The complainant has also not adduced evidence that cheque against premium was encashed by Opposite Party No.2, and amount debited. Thus, cogent evidence in support of submission of proposal form, payment of Rs.3,604/- as premium, death certificate of husband of the complainant has also not come on record. There are inconsistencies in the stand of the parties. The fact whether the proposal form and the cheque of premium were sent by Opposite Party No.1 to Opposite Party No.2 for issuance of Insurance Policy in the name of the deceased husband of the complainant is disputed. No cogent evidence was led by Opposite Party No.1, in this regard. The proof of this fact requires the examination and cross-examination of the witnesses and leading of documentary evidence. There being complex and complicated questions of law, and fact, involved in the case, the same could not be adjudicated upon by the Consumer Fora, in summary proceedings. The District Forum was, thus, right in holding that the complaint, in question, required detailed evidence, and cross-examination of the witnesses and granted liberty to the complainant to approach the Civil Court.
16. No other point, was urged, by the Counsel for the parties.
17. The order passed by the District Forum, does not suffer from any illegality or perversity, warranting the interference of this Commission.
18. For the reasons recorded above, the appeal filed by the appellant/complainant, being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same is dismissed, with no order as to costs. The order of the District Forum is upheld.
19. Certified copies of this order, be sent to the parties, free of charge.
20. The file be consigned to Record Room, after completion.