Tata Aia Life Insurance Co Ltd & ANR v. Prem Nath & Others
!"
#$% &'
(%)*+*&, --
!"#"
$
!
!
./ !- 0
0-
%& '$ () '
"
"
()
!
) *+,-+,+, .....
0- 2 - 3#4"
*
*0*++,*1
2#"
(
$+0 +,*1
2
2
$*&
!
4*(0567& 60 /
2
8*+9
+ :
;
$*& )
2 /$*0465*,0+ +*,++,**
/
$-& 3 8
!
4*(0567&
2
2
+
!
$*&
( (
2
$*& +=,-+,*1
/
( ,4 -
&
2>
2
2 /2
)
6 # 2
(
>
"
++ 5
/"
(*=51
#
)
)
(
/
%& "8.
Arguments have been advanced by Sh. Gaje Singh, the Ld. Counsel for the petitioner as well as Sh. Sekhar Kapoor, the Ld. Counsel for respondents No.1 and 2. With their kind assistance, the entire record as well as documentary evidence has been led during the prosecution of the petition has also been properly perused and examined.
9.
As per the contentions raised on behalf of petitioner as well as the contesting respondents, it is not in dispute that the petitioner had purchased one policy no.C156481052 on 21.02.2011 through respondent no.3 and paid a premium of Rs. 61,584/-. Due to certain constraint reasons, the petitioner could not make the payment and had to continue it. It has further been contended by the Ld. Counsel for the petitioner
-
that though the petitioner could not continue to make the payment of the premium regularly for the specified period, for which the policy was due but still, the petitioner is at least entitled for refund of the amount of the premium which he had already paid because of the amount of the premium has been utilized by the contesting respondent for sufficiently long period.
10.
While refuting the contentions raised on behalf of petitioner, it has further been argued by Sh. Sekhar Kapoor, the Ld. Counsel for the contesting respondents that there was a free look period for which, the petitioner could have exercise his right to withdraw the policy but since, it has not been exercised and only one premium has been paid but no reasons have been explained as to why the premium could not be paid as per terms and conditions of the insurance policy and as such, the petitioner is not entitled to get the refund of the said amount since the amounts stands forfeited for noncompliance of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. In fact, the insurance policies stands terminated for non-compliance of the terms and conditions and for not depositing the premiums regularly. Inspite of fact that two notices were issued against the petitioner to revive the policy but did not bother even to respond the notices. Under these circumstances, the petitioner is not entitled to get any amount.
6
11.
Facing such a situation and the circumstances as narrated above which have not been disputed, it is true that the petitioner had deposited an amount of Rs.61,584/-on 21.02.2011 for purchase of policy no.C156481052. Further the petitioner was not in a position due to lack of financial sources to continue to make the payment of the premium and had to discontinue. It is true that all terms and conditions are to be incorporated in the insurance policy regarding forfeiture of the percentage of the amount which has been deposited as a premium. A perusal of the policy Ex.P2 as well as the proposal form placed on the record and tendered in the evidence as Ex.R1, does not reflect or indicate any clause vide which, there could be an legal impediment not to refund the amount of the premium.
It is also equally to make a reference here that since the amount was deposited in the year of 2011 and this amount has been properly utilized by the respondents for a sufficiently long period more than five years, it would be in the interest of justice, if the amount of the policy which was paid as a premium to the tune of Rs.61,584/- is refunded to the petitioner. Hence, while accepting the petition to toto, the directions are issued to the contesting respondents no.1 and 2 to refund the premium amount of Rs. 61,584/- within the period of 45 days, failing which the petitioner would further be entitled to get the interest@12% p.a. for the defaulting period.
0
the award be drawn accordingly.
12.
Under the provisions of the Act contained in Section 22E(1) and (4) the award made by this court is final and shall not be called in question in any original suit, application or execution proceedings. Further, as per clauses (2) and (5) of that provision, this award shall be deemed to be a decree of a civil court and thus shall be executable as if it were a decree made by that court."
0 //
(
4
/ +1,-+,*5
(
(
%&
!
!
"# $% & '
$ (
! &
4
)
*! +
$,- (! .
/ &! 0 #112.#034 $
##5#1 2 (
6 1 ?
) /2
) (
)
/ @
2 2
*+,-+,+,(
2
/
5
>
2
( (
=
/
<
) 2
$*& 2 /
+,**
)
!
2
!
!? A
!
( +,,+ /
@
*0
B
@
(
(
2
*0
!
4*(0567& 2
1
( (
$*&
+,** B )
/
(
@ /
@ )2
2 # "
/
2
( *=4- ,-
<
2
2
2
2#"
) / 2
<
2
2#"
*, )
/ /
/
( )
(
( 2> /
2 /2 2 2
2 #"
$- ( (
/
(
)
2> /
7 2 **
( ?) :
D &+,6*&+,,5 *+,++,,5(
E*,( !&$&3+
,(*# /$(- %35#,%,$ /&6 (#4#$2 784*) $*4*$9 0%3:*)%+ #,( &$;%3+A +,,5-4 !! ) 404
2 # "
( /
/
/ 2
2
5
-
2 2
2 F (
/ "
(*=51( 2 F
(
;
@
2 2
)
>
2#"
-
<
/
/
,-
2
2
2#"
)
(
2
2
7
(
2
@
> 2 /2
2
)
2#"
(3
/
2
<
/
2 2 - ;% <3%+%,$ <%$*$*&, *+ ;%,)% #44&=%(
*0*++,*1
2#"
(
$+0 +,*1
2
0- "
--
/7
%
7$
2 %
7$