Back
ODISHA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CUTTACK
Dr. D.P. Choudhury, President
Branch Manager, Punjab National Bank – Appellant
versus
Raj Kumar Jhunjhunwala and Anr. – Respondents
First Appeal No.A/156 of 2015
(Arisen out of Order Dated 13/01/2015 in Case No.CC/116/2013 of District Jharsuguda)
Decided on 17.11.2021
Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Section 15 (Consumer Protection Act, 2019 – Section 41) – First Appeal against Order passed by Distt. Commission - Complainant and his deceased wife have obtained loan of Rs.16,00,000/- jointly from OP No.1 - Complainant purchased surrender policy from OP 2 to secure the payment of loan jointly held - Complainant deposited Rs.61,270/- which was debited to their account but Rs.29,065/- was credited as insurance premium in respect of Complainant’s deceased wife against sum assured of Rs.10,29,235/- for 9 years – Complainant’s wife died during currency of policy – Complaint filed before Distt. Commission which directed OP 1/Appellant to waive out the interest charged in the loan acc. on said Rs.10,29,235/- – Appeal filed - Findings of this Commission: Mere debiting the premium without any proposal form sent by the OP No.1 for wife of Rajkumar Jhunjhunwalla is gross negligence on part of the OP No.1 - OP No.2 should not have retained money without asking for proposal form of Uma Jhunjhunwalla from OP No.1 - OP No.1 is negligent and deficiency of service and complainant being consumer is worst sufferer of lack of understanding btw. OP No.1 & 2 - Retention of premium amt. by OP No.2 without issuing policy or making query thereof is deficiency in service on part of OP No.2 – This Commission is in full agreement with the finding of Distt. Forum but its Order is modified to the extent that OP No.2 would remove deficiency of service by opening a policy in favour of Uma Jhunjhunwalla from the date they received the entire money Rs.61,270/- and settle the amt. of sum assured Rs.10,29,235/- in her favour since she died during policy in force - OP No.1 directed to waive interest on that loan amt. for the prd. commencing from her death till today as she was beneficiary of policy, also directed to remove the deficiency of service by adjusting the sum assured rcvd. from OP No.2 and Rs.6,00,000/- deposited by complainant with OP No.1 during prd. of appeal against loan amt. of Rs.16,00,000/- received by complainant and his deceased wife - OP No.1 and OP No.2 are directed to pay Rs.10,000/- each as compensation to complainant.
Held: After hearing both the parties, learned District Forum passed the following order:-
“1. The OP No.2 is hereby directed to credit the sum assured amount of Rs.10,29,235/-(Rupees ten lakh twenty nine thousand two hundred thirty five) only in the joint loan account No.1403306714196 by entering the premium amount of Rs.32,205/- (Rupees thirty two thousand two hundred and five) only towards not mentioning the life of Uma Jhunjhunwala in the Master Policy along with pay a sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand)only towards mental agony and harassment to the complainant.
2. The Op No.1 is hereby directed to waive out the interest charged in the loan account on said Rs.10,29,235/- (Rupees ten lakh twenty nine thousand two hundred thirty five) only from the date of death of Uma Jhunjhunwala i.e. 30.04.2013 till the date of realization of the said sum assured of Rs.10,29,235/- (Rupees ten lakh twenty nine thousand two hundred thirty five) only from the OP No.2 alongwith pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand) only towards cost of the case to the complainant.
3. The above mentioned order4s shall be carried out within 02(two) months from the date of receipt of this order, failing which the Ops shall be liable for interest @ 10% per annum on their respective awarded amounts till realization.
It may not be out of place to mention here that OP No.1 has introduced to OP No.2 the loan account holders because of memorandum of understanding between them. So, mere debiting the premium without any proposal form sent by the OP No.1 for wife of Rajkumar Jhunjhunwalla is also gross negligence on the part of the OP No.1. Besides, the OP No.2 should not have retained the money without asking for the proposal form of Uma Jhunjhunwalla from OP No.1. So, OP No.1 is negligent and deficiency of service and the complainant being consumer is the worst sufferer of lack of understanding between OP No.1 & 2.
The retention of the premium amount by the OP No.2 without issuing policy or making querry thereof is a deficiency in service on the part of OP No.2. May be that mere retention of premium money by OP No.2 in absence of proposal form can not saddle him with liability but remaining silent without further query or asking for proposal form would attribute deficiency of service with OP No.2.
In view of above discussion this Commission is in full agreement with the finding of the learned District Forum but U/S-14 of the Act the order seems to have not been passed by learned District Forum and hereby it is modified to the extent that OP No.2 would remove the deficiency of service by opening a policy in favour of Uma Jhunjhunwalla from the date they received the entire money Rs.61,270/- and settle the amount of sum assured Rs.10,29,235/- in her favour since she died during policy in force and pay same to OP No.1 under proper receipt. Similarly, OP No.1 is directed to waive out interest on that loan amount for the period commencing from her death till today as she was beneficiary of policy. OP No.1 is also directed to remove the deficiency of service as such and to adjust the sum assured received from OP No.2 and Rs.6,00,000/- deposited by complainant with OP No.1 during period of appeal. against loan amount of Rs.16,00,000/- received by the complainant and his deceased wife. Further, OP No.1 and OP No.2 are directed to pay Rs.10,000/- each as compensation to complainant for mental agony and harassment meted out to the complainant. All above direction be complied by Ops within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of this order, failing which they will carry interest @ 9 % per annum from the date of impugned order till payment is made. Rest part of the order will remain unaltered. (Para 6, 13, 14 & 17)
Result: Appeal disposed of.
JUDGMENT
Dr. D.P. Choudhury, President.—Heard learned counsel for both the parties. F.A.156 of 2015 has been filed by OP No.1-Bank where as F.A.211 of 2015 has been preferred to by OP No.2-Insurance Company. Both appeals being assailed against impugned order are hereby disposed of by this common order.
2. This appeal is filed U/S-15 of erstwhile Consumer Protection Act,1986(herein-after called the Act). Hereinafter, the parties to this appeal shall be referred to with reference to their respective status before the learned District Forum.
3. The case of the complainant, in nutshell is that the complainant and his deceased wife Uma Jhunjhunwala have obtained loan of Rs.16,00,000/- jointly from OP No.1 bearing joint loan account no.1403306714196. At the time of taking loan under the instruction of OP No.1 the complainant purchased the surrender policy from Op No.2 to secure the payment of loan jointly they held. Therefore, it is alleged inter-alia that complainant has deposited Rs.61,270/- which was debited to their account but Rs.29,065/- was only credited as insurance premium in respect of deceased wife of the complainant against sum assured of Rs.10,29,235/- for nine years. However, the wife of complainant died during currency of policy. The complainant alleged that while filing the claim he came to know that the policy has remained on the life of the complainant and wife has become nominee for the said amount although premium for both of them has been paid by them. The complainant made complaint before the OP No.1 but denied to have received any response. So, the complaint was filed.
4. Per contra, the OP no.1 filed written version stating that they have received the premium amount of Rs.61,270/- from the account of the complainant and same was sent to OP No.2 and later found that name of Uma Jhunjhunwalla has been omitted for which there is gross negligence of OP No.2. It is averred that OP No.2 is still in possession of the balance amount of Rs.32,135/-. Therefore, the OP No.2 is responsible but not OP No.1.
5. OP No.2 filed the written version stating that they have received the premium and issued the master policy 0255260951 in favour of OP No.1 for nine years. Accordingly they have calculated and issued one policy. They have not received as Rs.61,270/- as premium for complainant and his wife from complainant as no proposal form for deceased wife of complainant was received. However, they submit to reject the same.
6. After hearing both the parties, learned District Forum passed the following order:-
“1. The OP No.2 is hereby directed to credit the sum assured amount of Rs.10,29,235/-(Rupees ten lakh twenty nine thousand two hundred thirty five) only in the joint loan account No.1403306714196 by entering the premium amount of Rs.32,205/- (Rupees thirty two thousand two hundred and five) only towards not mentioning the life of Uma Jhunjhunwala in the Master Policy along with pay a sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand)only towards mental agony and harassment to the complainant.
2. The Op No.1 is hereby directed to waive out the interest charged in the loan account on said Rs.10,29,235/- (Rupees ten lakh twenty nine thousand two hundred thirty five) only from the date of death of Uma Jhunjhunwala i.e. 30.04.2013 till the date of realization of the said sum assured of Rs.10,29,235/- (Rupees ten lakh twenty nine thousand two hundred thirty five) only from the OP No.2 alongwith pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand) only towards cost of the case to the complainant.
3. The above mentioned order4s shall be carried out within 02(two) months from the date of receipt of this order, failing which the Ops shall be liable for interest @ 10% per annum on their respective awarded amounts till realization.
Accordingly the case is disposed of”
7. Learned counsel for the appellant-bank has clearly submitted that learned District Forum has passed the impugned order illegally by not considering the fact that OP No.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
