w w w . L a w y e r S e r v i c e s . i n



Sudesh Bala v/s Birla Sun Life Insurance Company Limited, Gurgaon & Another


Company & Directors' Information:- BIRLA CORPORATION LIMITED [Active] CIN = L01132WB1919PLC003334

Company & Directors' Information:- SUN PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U24246RJ1984PTC003093

Company & Directors' Information:- G SUN INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U74899DL1995PTC071425

Company & Directors' Information:- SUN INDIA CORPORATION PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U65991TN1943PTC000994

    First Appeal No. 188 of 2018

    Decided On, 24 July 2018

    At, Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Panchkula

    By, THE HONOURABLE MR. DIWAN SINGH CHAUHAN
    By, PRESIDING MEMBER

    For the Appellant: Sikander Bakshi, Counsel. For the Respondents: R1, S.C. Thatai, Counsel, R2, None.



Judgment Text

Diwan Singh Chauhan, Presiding Member.

1. The present appeal has been decided by me in view of the order passed by Hon’ble President of the State Commission conveyed to me vide Endst. No. 195 dated 25.01.2018 whereby I have been authorized to decide the cases singly in Additional Bench-II.

This appeal has been preferred against the order dated 04.12.2017 passed by the District Consumer Forum, Gurgaon (for short ‘District Forum’) whereby complaint filed by the complainant/respondent has been accepted by the District Forum and following relief was granted to him:-

'Therefore, keeping in view the above verdict rendered by the Hon’ble National Commission, New Delhi the present case is squarely covered by the aforesaid judgment and thus the complaint was liable to be dismissed for want of status of complainant as ‘consumer’ before this Forum and as such the complaint is hereby dismissed with no order as to cost.'

Brief facts of the case are that the appellant/complainant obtained a policy vide cover note No. 003179351 on 30.07.2009 from OP No.1 and deposited all the installments of the policy to the respondents. The complainant further alleged that the complainant fill up a policy bond to the respondent No.1 for withdrawal the amount in question, but the respondent No.1 only releasing Rs.50,000/- in favour of Complainant whereas as per terms and conditions of policy chart, the total benefits amount of the complainant made Rs.1,18,928.32/- but the respondent unnecessary harassing and denying in making the amount of the complainant. The complainant also sent a reminder notice as well as legal notice to the OPs but till today no amount has been released by the respondents.

OP No.1 was proceeded against exparte vide order dated 06.09.2016 as he failed to appear despite service.

Upon notice OP No.2 appeared through his mother and filed reply taking the plea that he was given the job of executive by Vishvnath Singh, resident of village Bhondsi who was Development Officer in Birla Sun Life Insurance Company, SCO 16,17 HUDA Market, Sector-31, Gurgaon and he obtained policy for his sister and thereafter he introduced Sudesh Bala to the Development Officer and the said Development Officer disclosed about the Birla Sun Life Policy to Sudesh Bala and he never met with Sudesh Bala and whatever proceedings were conducted the same conducted by the Development Officer of the Company and Sudesh Bala affixed her signature on the policy bond after understanding the policy by the Development Officer and Sudesh Bala deposited the amount herself and she obtained the receipt herself. It has been further contended that his services was dispensed with by Birla Sun Life Insurance Company as he failed to give a policy request and thus there was direct link between Sudesh Bala and Development Officer and he had no concern with Sudesh Bala. It has been further contended that he was not aware as to what policy was given to his sister and Sudesh Bala. He was not aware anything and whatever happened was done by the Development Officer and as such he has got no concerns with the policy in question.

Both the parties led their evidence in support of their respective claims.

On appraisal of the pleadings of the parties and evidence adduced on record, the District Forum dismissed the complaint of the complainant as noticed in the opening para of this order.

Aggrieved with the impugned order, appellant-complainant has come up in appeal. Hence this appeal.

Case called several times but none has appeared on behalf of respondent No.2. I did not think it appropriate to adjourn this appeal indefinitely, and therefore, I proceed to decide this appeal and going through the case file.

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file thoroughly.

The counsel of the appellant/complainant contended that he obtained a policy vide cover note No. 003179351 on 30.07.2009 from OP No.1 and deposited all the installments of the policy to the respondents. The complainant further alleged that the complainant fill up a policy bond to the respondent No.1 for withdrawal the amount in question, but the respondent No.1 only releasing Rs.50,000/- in favour of Complainant whereas as per terms and conditions of policy chart, the total benefits amount of the complainant made Rs.1,18,928.32/- but the respondent unnecessary harassing and denying in making the amount of the complainant. The complainant also sent a reminder notice as well as legal notice to the OPs but till today no amount has been released by the respondents. The District Forum did not considered the facts of the case and wrongly dismissed the complaint on the ground of maintainability.

The counsel of the OP No.1/respondent No.1 contended that complainant purchased a policy No. 003179351 on 30.07.2009 and paid premiums as per plan. The premiums of the said policy was invested in the share market and the fund value including the top of fund value if any was liable to be refunded at the time of maturity of the said policy.

I have gone through the facts and circumstance of the case evidence adduced on record by both the parties. The complainant purchased a policy No. 003179351 on 30.07.2009 and deposited all the installments of the policy to the respondents. OP No.1/respondent No.1 was proceeded ex-parte by the District Forum vide order dated 06.09.2016. OP No.1/respondent No.1 filed Revision Petition No. 135 of 2016 before this Commission which was allowed on 06.02.2017 and order dated 06.09.2016 passed by District Forum was set aside subject to conditional cost of Rs.3000/- to be paid to the complainant. Consequently petitioner was accorded opportunity to file written version and join the proceedings. But no written version was filed by the OP No.1/respondent No.1.

The District Forum dismissed the complaint on the ground of maintainability of the complaint without going into merit of the case. Thus, it is a fit case where the matter should be remitted to the District Forum to

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

decide afresh. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside without going into the merit of this case and case is remanded back to the District Consumer Forum, Gurgaon with direction to decide the complaint afresh on merit after giving opportunities to both the parties to lead their evidence/documents/written statement as per provision of the Consumer Protection Act. Parties/their counsel are directed to appear before the Learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Palwal on 30.08.2018. Copy of the order be given to the appellant/respondent dasti as well as sent the same to the District Consumer Forum, Gurgaon forthwith for compliance.
O R