Punjab

Rupnagar

CC/21/62

Gurpreet Singh Bansal - Complainant(s)

Versus

AU Small Finance Bank Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Sh. Amrit Kumar Sharma, Adv.

08 Dec 2022

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTT. CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, ROPAR

                        Consumer Complaint No. : 62 of 02.09.2021

                        Date of decision           :   08.12.2022

 

Gurpreet Singh Bansal aged about 34 years son of Harbhajan Singh, resident of 3298/2, Ward No.15, Behind J.R. Theatre, Gobind Nagar, Ropar, Tehsil & District Rupnagar through his Power of Attorney Shri Harbhajan Singh son of Late S. Nand Singh, resident of #3298/2, Ward No.15, Behind J.R. Theatre, Gobind Nagar, Ropar, Tehsil & District Rupnagar   

                                           ......Complainant

                                             Versus

1. AU Small Finance Bank Limited, Head Office: No.19-A, Dhuleshwar Garden, Ajmer Road, Jaipur (Rajasthan), Pin:302001 (India) through its Managing Director/Competent Authority
2. AU Small Finance Bank Limited, Zirakpur, Raksha Business Center, Ground Floor Shop No.10-11, Ambala Chandigarh Highway, Zirakpur, District Mohali, through its Branch Manager
3. Future General India Life Insurance Company Limited, Unit 801 & 802, 8^th floor, Tower C, Embassy 247 Park, LBS Marg, Vikhroli (W) Mumbai-400 083, Maharashtra, through its Regional Manager/Competent Authority
4. Future General India Life Insurance Company Limited, 2^nd Floor, Sandhu Tower, Ferozepur Road, Ludhiana-141001, through its Branch Manager  

   ...Opposite Parties

                         Complaint under Consumer Protection Act

QUORUM

                         SH. RANJIT SINGH, PRESIDENT

                         SMT. RANVIR KAUR, MEMBER

 

ARGUED BY

 

Sh. Amrit Kumar Sharma, Adv. for complainant

Sh. Sumit Pasricha, Adv. counsel for O.Ps. No.1 & 2

Sh. Arvind Kumar Rishi, Adv. for OPs No.3 & 4 

 

ORDER

SH. RANJIT SINGH, PRESIDENT

The present order of ours will dispose of the above complaint filed under Consumer Protection Act, by the complainant against the Opposite Parties on the ground that the OP No.1 & 2 are running your bank under the name and style of AU Small Finance Bank Limited and their one of the branches is at Zirakpur. The OPs No.1 & 2 are connivance with the addresses No.3 & 4 are running their business under the name and style of Future General India Life Insurance Company Limited and their policies are being sold by Ops No.2 and one of the employee of the addressee No.2 attracted the complainant through a telephonic call to purchase the insurance policy. The complainant provided all the documents and forms dated 300.01.2021 and purchased the insurance policy namely FG Bima Advantage Plus Vide policy No.01651234 issued on 17.2.2021. The complainant gave Rs.2,00,000/- as premium for this policy for one year and the said amount was paid through an online transaction dated 31.1.2021. The said insurance policy has been taken with a death benefit for ten years. The complainant has provided the mandate on 30.1.2021 to deduct the further premium from the AU Small Finance bank Limited. Saving account No.2071247930049239 which got rejected by the said bank for the reason signatures mis match on 1.5.2021. Thereafter, future general informed about the approval of the mandate through an email dated 4.5.2021 followed by another email informing about the rejection of the approved mandate and requested to submit a new mandate. Thereafter, without taking further mandate, the OP2 on 10.5.2021, itself approved the same mandate with other forged signatures of the complainant which was previously rejected by them, without the consent of the complainant and without informing the complainant and in this way the Ops No.1 to 4 in connivance with each other have defrauded the complainant and the complainant and the complainant has every apprehension that in future they can misuse amount of the complainant in the said amount. It is further stated that the complainant is serving abroad and he is sending a huge amount in his said account and from the said act and conduct the OPs, the complainant feels that his hard earned amount deposited in the said account can be misused any time. It is appropriate to mention that an employee of OPs No.3 & 4 had accepted that there were gaps in ECS Registration. The maximum TAT to submit the mandate after the policy is logged in is 30 days which has not been respected by the OPs No.1 to 4. Thus, alleging deficiency in service, the complainant sought the following relief against the Ops:-

1. To pay Rs.26,39,556/-  
2. To pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation.

2.       In reply, the OPs No.1 & 2 has filed written reply taking preliminary objections;  that the complaint of the complainant is not maintainable; that the complainant has no locus standi to file the present complaint; that the present complaint has filed by the complainant just to harass and humiliate the answering OPs. On merits, it is stated that request of the complainant mandate registration at first time, got rejected as the verifying officer of answering OPs observed some discrepancy raising doubt of signature/mismatch signatures. However, when FGLI represented the same mandate for the second time to OPs bank verifying officer, on receiving the request of second time enhanced the due diligence and checking the transaction history in the bank account approved the same. Even, the Ops requested to stand information that signature verification is a subject matter and depends entirely on the discretion/skill of the verifying officer. It is quite likely that a signature is differently verifying officer. However, OPs bank had sent a SMS alert on the registered mobile number of the complainant to inform about rejection and approval of mandate, which was never disputed or clarified by the complainant. If the complainant visit the branch office of the answering OPs then the OPs bank have just registered this mandate and no amounts have been cleared till date based in the instruction carried out under the mandate in dispute. A legal notice received by the answering OPs and the answering OPs have also gave reply to the said legal notice in which answering OPs written that they are holding the dispute ECH mandate and further requesting the complainant to kindly visit the nearest branch and prove the new ECH mandate for the future premium of insurance policy and branch will assist better in this regard. Besides that, the complainant never visited the branch office nor he regularized his ECH mandate and mandate form as scribed in this complaint is matter of record. Thus, alleging no deficiency in service on the part of OPs and prayed for dismissal the present complaint.

3.       The learned counsel for the OPs NO.3 & 4 have appeared and filed written reply taking preliminary objections; that the complaint is not maintainable; that the complainant has no jurisdiction to entertain the present complaint; that the complainant has suppressed the material facts from this Hon’ble Commission; that the complainant has failed to demonstrate any deficiency in service on the part of the answering OPs; that the complaint of the complainant has specifically alleged forgery and also leveled allegations of fraud, cheating and mis selling, hence the same cannot be adjudicated under summary proceedings, and can only adjudicated in civil court after holding a proper trial and leading substantive evidence; that the complainant has not acted in good faith with respect to the subject of this complaint and has also approached the Hon’ble Commission with unclean hands. On merits, it is stated that the father of the policy holder was duly informed that in case he is not satisfied with the features or the terms and conditions of the policies he can withdarw/cancel the policy under the free look period provision, that is, within 15 days from the date of receipt of policy documents. It is well settled law of insurance contracts that the benefits under the policy is payable as per the policy terms and conditions and that the term in the insurance contract be interpreted with strict interpretation.  Therefore, the company is not under liability to provide for reliefs outside the purview of its policy T & C to the policy holder. It is further stated that the prayer of the complainant for refund of premium in the present case is completely against established law in relation to life insurance. Thus, alleging no deficiency in service on the part of answering OPs and prayed for dismissal the present complaint. 

3.       The learned counsel for the parties have tendered certain documents in support of their version and closed the evidence.

4.       We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record file, carefully and minutely.

5.       In view of documents placed on record by the complainant, we allow the complaint and directed the OP3 to pay Rs,2,00,000/- along with interest @ 7% per annum from the date of filing of the present complaint. The OPs No.1 to 4 are also directed to pay Rs.20,000/- as compensation and Rs.11,000/- as litigation expenses to the complainant. The Ops are further directed to comply with the said order within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.   Free certified copies of this order be sent to the parties, as per rules. The files be consigned to record room.

  

ANNOUNCED                                                                                   (RANJIT SINGH)

          Dated.08.12.2022                                                                           PRESIDENT
 

 

 

                                            

                                                                                      (RANVIR KAUR)

                                                                                                                   MEMBER