ADDITIONAL BENCH STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PUNJAB, CHANDIGARH.

First Appeal No.787 of 2019 Date of institution : 29.11.2019 Reserved on : 25.03.2022 Date of decision : 07.04.2022 SBI Life Insurance Company Limited, Chandigarh, SCO No.109-110, First Floor, Sector 17-B, Chandigarh-160016 through its Authorized Person/Authorized Signatory.

…..Appellant/Opposite Party No.1 Versus

1. Harjinder Singh aged about 71 years son of Sh. Kartar Singh, resident of Gobind Nagri, Street No.3, Near Water Tank, Malout, District Sri Muktsar Sahib, Punjab.

……Respondent/complainant

2. Davinder Singh son of Sh. Sahab Singh, resident of Gali No.8, Sarabha Nagar, House No.165, Malout, Tehsil Malout, District Sri Muktsar Sahib, Punjab.

3. State Bank of India, Kairon Road, Malout, Tehsil Malout, District Sri Muktsar Sahib, Punjab, through its Branch Manager.

…..Respondents/Opposite Parties No.2 &3 First Appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the order dated 24.10.2019 of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (now ‘Commission’), Sri Muktsar Sahib.

Quorum:-

Mr. Rajinder Kumar Goyal, Presiding Member Mrs. Kiran Sibal, Member Argued by:-

For the appellant : Sh. Rajneesh Malhotra, Advocate For respondent No.1 : None For respondent No.2 : None For respondent No.3 : Ex-parte KIRAN SIBAL, MEMBER The instant appeal has been filed by the appellant/opposite party No.1 against the impugned order dated 24.10.2019 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Sri Muktsar Sahib (in short, now “the District Commission”), whereby the complaint filed by complainant against opposite parties (in short ‘OPs’), under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, was accepted and the following relief has been granted:

“19. In view of the discussion made above, present complaint is allowed against opposite party No.1 and dismissed against opposite parties No.2 & 3. Accordingly, opposite party No.1 is directed to pay Rs.2,50,000/- as sum assured under the policy with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of maturity i.e. 14.02.2018. The opposite party No.1 is also directed to pay Rs.5000/- as compensation for harassment alongwith Rs.5000/-

as litigation expenses to the complainant.”

2. It would be apposite to mention that hereinafter the parties will be referred, as have been arrayed before the District Commission.

3. Brief facts for the disposal of the appeal are that OP No.2, Davinder Singh, approached the complainant for investing Rs.40000/-, in one time investment, in a policy supported by State Bank of India and assured that he would get sum assured of Rs.2,50,000/- on maturity of the policy in addition to life risk cover. OP No.2 further assured the complainant that as per policy term(4)H, if the fund value fell below Rs.10,000/- at the time of deduction of the charge, the policy would immediately terminate and fund value without deduction of any charge would be paid to the policy holder and all rights and benefits under the policy would automatically cease. Believing on the assurance given by OP No.2, the complainant invested in the policy of OP No.1 by paying an amount of Rs.40,000/- vide demand draft No.590359 dated 19.01.2007. The maturity date of the policy was 14.02.2018, but on the said date of maturity the complainant got Rs.261/- only. The complainant approached OP No.2, who denied his responsibility and told that he had retired from his job. The complainant also moved an application by post to OP No.1 but they never gave any reply and ultimately refused to accept the request of the complainant. Alleging deficiency in service, the complainant filed the complaint before District Commission and sought sum assured of Rs.2,50,000/- along with interest @ 18 % p.a., compensation to the tune of Rs.20,000/- and Rs.11,000/- as litigation expenses.

4. Upon notice, OPs appeared through counsel and filed written replies separately. In reply, OP No.1 raised certain preliminary objections as stated in the reply, which ar