First Appeal No. 381 of 2012. Case: Surinder Pal Kaur Vs Aviva Life Insurance Company India Limited. Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
| Case Number | First Appeal No. 381 of 2012 |
| Counsel | For Appellant: Mr. Sarabjit Singh Sidhu, Advocate and For Respondents: Mr. Sandeep Suri, Advocate |
| Judges | Gurdev Singh, J. (President), Baldev Singh Sekhon and Surinder Pal Kaur, Members |
| Issue | Consumer Law |
| Citation | II (2014) CPJ 138 (Punj.) |
| Judgement Date | April 02, 2014 |
| Court | Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission |
Order:
Baldev Singh Sekhon, Member
-
This appeal has been filed by the appellant/complainant against the order dated 24.1.2012 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Shaheed Bhagat Singh Nagar (in short "District Forum"), vide which her complaint against the respondents/opposite parties was dismissed. The facts, as stated in the complaint, are that the complainant was having a saving bank account in the Centurian Bank, which was merged in the HDFC Bank, Nawanshahr. The Branch Manager of opposite party No. 1 suggested some profitable schemes to her and her husband so as to invest the amount with them. The Manager also gave assurance that they would get interest @ 14-15% which would be payable after the lock-in-period of three years and that the policy would also cover the life risk. The opposite parties obtained her signatures on certain prescribed proposal forms on 20.4.2007 and she paid Rs. 62,500 to them. Thereafter, she paid Rs. 62,500 each in the year 2008 and 2009. Thus, in all, she invested Rs. 1,87,500 with them. After the lapse of the lock-in-period of three years, she enquired about the deposited amount and was told that the growth value as on 22.4.2010 was Rs. 1,63,688. She submitted an application on prescribed form for the payment of entire amount. However, she received a cheque dated 7.5.2010 from the opposite parties for Rs. 73,224 only. Thereupon, she served a legal notice dated 14.5.2010 upon the opposite parties asking for the details of the amount paid and provisions of the law on the basis of which, deduction was made from the invested amount of Rs. 1,87,500. The opposite parties, in order to promote their business, allure the customers without explaining the terms and conditions of the policy. She was entitled for refund of Rs. 1,87,500, along with interest. Her earlier complaint filed before the District Forum, was decided on 25.11.2010 and the opposite parties were directed to decide her entire dispute. In the present complaint directions are sought to direct them to pay balance amount of Rs. 1,14,344 along with interest. Damages to the tune of Rs. 2,00,000 were also demanded.
-
Upon notice, the opposite parties strongly contested the complaint and filed written reply taking preliminary objections that the present complaint was barred by Section 11 of the CPC, 1908 on the principles of res judicata. The complaint was false, malicious and not maintainable and there was no negligence or deficiency...
To continue reading
Request your trial