Kanwaljit Singh vs Aviva Lic & Anr

Anup K. Thakur, J

This Revision Petition No. 191 of 2019 filed on 22.1.2019 on behalf of the petitioner/complainant-Sri KanwaljitSingh, by POA Sri Ranjit Singh (hereinafter complainant) assails the order dt 14.8.2018 of the Punjab Consumer State Redressal Commission, Chandigarh (hereinafter State Commission) in F.A. No.208 of 2018.Vide this order, State Commission had modified the District Forum's order dated 6.03.2018 in EA 25/2017. In turn, this EA 25 of 2017 was filed before the District Forum for execution of it's order dt. 30.3.2015. This order dt. 30.3.2015 had become final as the appeal against it had also been dismissed by the State Commission vide it's order dt.15.9.2016. Basically, the complaint stood allowed and the respondents/OPs-Insurance Company (hereafter OP) were directed to pay 9% interest p.a. on the amount of Rs.30 lakh premium, from the date it was received by the OP till the date it was refunded to the complainant, adjusted for interest already paid for 18 days.The District Forum had allowed this interest by way of compensation.

To understand this revision petition, it is necessary to have a brief history of the proceedings so far.

The complainant, a NRI, in January 2008, took three policies, paying by way of premium a total amount of Rs.30 lakh, from the OP. Not satisfied with the manner in which service was provided, he sought cancellation of the policies and return of the amount with interest. The OP returned Rs. 30 lakh to the complainant on 3.9.2012 with Rs. 8,876/- penal interest for delay of 18 days in this refund. No interest on the 30 lakh was however paid. So, consumer complaint CC/92/2014 dt 12.3.2014 was filed before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Jalandhar, seeking Rs.50,000/- for mental tension etc., 9% interest for 4 ½ years on Rs.30 lakh, and Rs.10,000/- as cost. This complaint was contested through a written reply but unsuccessfully: The OP argued that there was no agreement for payment of interest; that the policies opted for were completely investment oriented and as such the matter itself not covered under the Consumer Protection Act. The OP further submitted that after due investigation, the policies under dispute were cancelled and the premium amount of Rs 30 lakh was refunded, with interest @ 6% p.a. for the delayed period of 18 days.

The District Forum found that the policies were not purely unit linked policies; rather, they were composite as they did contain a policy of life risk. Post cancellation, only the premium amount of Rs.30 lakh, with interest only for delay of 18 days, had been returned, even though the premium had remained with the OP for about 4 ½ years. On the logic that some mis- selling and deficiency stood established by the very fact that the OP had needed time consuming investigation to examine the complainant's grievance, it concluded that it was a case of cancellation after finding some substance in the complaint. Thus, in a way, the OP had admitted its own fault. Accordingly, the District Forum vide order dt. 30.3.2015, directed the OP to pay 9% interest on the premium of Rs.30 lakh, from the date it was received by the insurance company till the date it was refunded to the complainant, adjusted for the interest on account of 18 days delay that has already been paid to the complainant. It was further directed that the payment be made within one month of the date of receipt of the order, failing which 9% interest would continue to be payable till the date payment was complete. A cost of Rs 3,000/- was also awarded. Appeal No. A/1021/2015 filed by the OP before the State Commission was dismissed on 15.09.2016, with the direction that the amounts of Rs. 3,25,000/- and Rs. 25,000/- ie. a total of Rs. 3,50,000/- , deposited with the commission for stay, be remitted to the complainant, and the remaining amount be also remitted to the complainant, within 30 days from receipt of the order. This net remaining amount was calculated by the OP at Rs. 9,02,545/- and duly paid to the complainant on 7.12.2016.

Even so, the complaint filed EA 25 of 2017 on 5.5.2017 before the District Forum praying for execution of it's order dt. 30.3.2015 in totality. This application admitted that there was part compliance of the order and that Rs. 9,02,545/- , the amount arrived at by the OP, comprising (i) interest @ 9% on Rs. 30 lakh from date of receipt till 3.9.2012, the date of return of principal amount of Rs. 30 lakh; (ii) litigation cost of Rs. 3,000/-; adjusted for (a) Rs 8,876/- already paid by OP, and (b) Rs 3,50,000/-, amountdeposited for stay with the commission and directed to be remitted to the complainant, had already been paid to the complainant on 7.12.2016. However, this fell short of total compliance. The District Forum vide order dt. 6.3.2018 directed that the complainant was indeed entitled to 9% interest on Rs. 9,02,545/- (the interest calculated in compliance of the district forum's order dt. 30.3.2015) from 30.6.2015 till 7.9.2016 when it was actually paid, treating the amount of Rs. 9,02,545/- now as the principal sum. Against this order, the complainant filed appeal no. A/208/2018 dt. 6.4.2018, contending that the order dt. 6.3.2018 was illogical and against it's own earlier order dt. 30.3.2015. It therefore now sought in appeal the following : (i) 9% on Rs 30 lakh from 11.5.2015 ( one month from date of receipt of the order by the OP ) till 7.9.2016 ( date on which payment of Rs. 9,02,545/- was made by the OP to the complainant), amounting to Rs. 4,25,656/-; (ii) further 9% on Rs. 4,25,656/- from 8.12.2016 till the date of payment. This appeal was disposed off by the State Commission vide it's order dt. 14.8.2018vide which it modified the order of the District Forum holding that the interest on the amount of Rs.3,50,000/- , for obtaining stay, had been deposited in interest bearing fixed deposit and this had already been directed to be remitted to the complainant/ DH.As this amount had already thus earned interest while in custody of the District Forum, the complainant/DH could not be doubly enriched by claiming further interest on this amount.

I.A. No.3664 of 2019 dated 25.02.2019 has been filed on behalf of the petitioner, inter-alia, praying for exemption from personal appearance and for deciding this case on merits on the basis of record.

I have examined the documents on record. It is noted that while this revision petition challenges the order of the State Commission dated 14.08.2018 vide which F.A. No.208 of 2018 had been summarily disposed off , it really pertains to the order of the District Forum dated 6.3.2018 in E.A. No.25 of 2017, narrated in para 6 above.

After a careful examination of the entire record leading to this RP, it is clear to me that the original complaint has been attended to fairly and justly by the District Forum orders dt. 30.3.2015 and 6.3.2018. It is even clearer that the manner in which this complaint has been pursued, after the order dt. 30.3.2015, borders on the vexatious. Thus, the main grievance of the complainant was that the OP had kept Rs 30 lakh with itself for more than four and a half years and offered no interest. This was resolved in favour of the complainant and 9% interest was awarded, from the date of receipt by the OP till 3.9.2012, the date when OP had refunded the principal amount of Rs. 30 lakh. This 9% interest thereafter was calculated as Rs. 12,58,421. Adjusting for Rs 3,50,000/- already in deposit with the commission, Rs 8,876/- interest already paid earlier, and Rs 3,000/- cost of litigation awarded,the net remaining amount of Rs. 9,02,545/- was paid on 7.12.2016. In this way, the total liability worked out in compliance of District Forum's order dt. 30.3.2015 amounting to Rs. 12,58,421/-, was paid to the complainant by/on 7.12.2016. One would have therefore expected the matter to end here. But it did not. The complainant then began to seek interest on Rs. 30 lakh, from the date when one month passed from the date of receipt of the District Forum's order by the OP, till the date of payment. This request too was considered favourably and it was decreed by the District Forum in it's order dt. 6.3.2018 that the OP was still liable to pay interest on Rs. 9,02,545/- from 30.6.2015 ( the date of receipt of order by the OP) till 7.12.2016 (the date of payment of Rs. 9,02,545/-) and directed that it be done by 19.3.2018. However, even this was not enough for the complainant who now filed an appeal before the State Commission, once again pleading that interest payable was on Rs 30 lakh and not Rs. 9,02,545/- allowed by the District Forum. After dismissal by the State Commission, the complainant has filed this Revision Petition, reiterating the same plea of interest on Rs 30 lakh. It is simply not understood what might be the basis for the claim of further interest on Rs 30 lakh when this amount had already been refunded on 3.9.2012.

When the original complaint was filed, there was a strong basis for claiming interest on Rs 30 lakh, from date of receipt by the OP till 3.9.2012, the date when Rs. 30 lakh had been returned to the complainant. Indeed, once deficiency had been found, it was logical and just for the OP to not only return the capital amount of Rs 30 lakh but also compensate for the interest foregone by the complainant. Therefore, the District Forum's order dt 30.3.2015, directing refund of interest @ 9% on the said principal amount of Rs. 30 lakh, was fair and just. Further, the direction to comply within 30 days, or continue to pay @ 9%, was also just and consumer oriented. However, this order cannot be interpreted to mean that in case the order was not complied with within the period allowed, the further interest liability would continue to be on Rs. 30 lakh. This is so because clearly, the day Rs 30 lakh was paid to the complainant ie. on 3.9.2012, its journey as a principal amount earning interest came to an end. On 3.9.2012, the interest accrued during the period it remained with the OP, calculated as Rs. 12,58,421/- , only remained due. This was the new principal amount, not Rs 30 lakh which passed from OP to the complainant on 3.9.2012. This total amount was paid via remitting Rs. 9,02,545/- and Rs. 3,50,000/-, as discussed in paras above. Further, since Rs 9,02,545/- ought to have been paid within 30 days and was not, interest @ 9% indeed became payable on Rs. 9,02,545/-, and this is precisely what was allowed in District Forum's order dt. 6.3.2018 which was upheld by the State Commission's impugned order dt. 14.8.2018. So, there is absolutely nothing wrong in these two impugned orders. No error of fact and none in law can be found in the impugned orders. On the other hand, unreasonable litigation, fuelled by greed, is on display.The manner in which the same plea, based on a completely erroneous interpretation of the District Forum's orders, has been made in this RP, is indeed vexatious. However, I refrain from imposing any cost on the petitioner.

In view of the discussion above, this revision petition is dismissed at the admission stage, on the ground that it lacks merit and borders on the vexatious. The order of the State Commission dated 14.08.2018, as also of the District Forum dt. 6.3.2018 is, accordingly, upheld.