1. The fact of the case of complainant is that she had deposited Rs. 36,000/- in three installments @ Rs. 12,000/- per annum in her life insurance policy with the O.Ps vide policy no. LN - 120900019667 for insured her life.  It is alleged that her daughter has deposited the same amount with the O.Ps and for apprehension of cheating her daughter has returned back her entire amount, as such the complainant wants to get back her money but neither the agent nor the company hearing to her, hence she filed this case for realization of her money with interest alongwith Rs. 20,000/- towards compensation. 
    
2. After receipt the notice from this Fora, the O.P.No. 1 & 3, being same organization, appeared through their common Ld. Counsel and filed their joint counter admitting the issuance of alleged life insurance policy in favour of the complainant vide insurance policy no. LN – 120900019667 commenced from 26.06.2009 for a term of 15 years with insured amount of Rs. 1,80,000/- and premiums of Rs. 12,000/- per annum. It is contented that the alleged policy is an ULIP policy which gives the complainant both investment and insurance under a single integrated plan and the complainant has deposited only for 2 annual premiums with them and thereafter she never deposited any premium i.e. from third year onwards fell on 26.06.2011.  Further they have contended that as per surrender application received from the complainant, they have released the surrender value to the complainant to an amount of Rs. 12,632.90 vide cheque no. 006847 dated 16.08.2013 and with other contentions showing no deficiency on their part, they have prayed to dismiss the case against them.
    
3. The O.P. No.2 though received the notice from this Fora and appeared in the present case but did not choose to file his counter version nor participated in the hearing inspite of several opportunities given to him keeping in view of natural justice, as such we lost every opportunities to hear from him.   Therefore, the allegations of complainant made against him remained unchallenged on his part.
    
4. The O.P.No.4 though received the notice from this Fora, did not choose to appear in this case nor filed his counter version nor participated in the hearing also inspite of several opportunities were given to him keeping in view of natural justice, as such we as such we lost every opportunities to hear from him.   Therefore, the allegations of complainant made against him remained unchallenged on his part.
    
5. Complainant has filed certain documents to prove her submissions, whereas the A/R for O.P. No. 1 & 3 filed certain documents in support of their contentions.  No other parties to the present proceeding have filed any documents.  Heard from the parties present at length.  Perused the case record and material documents available therein.
    
6. In the instant case, issuance of alleged life insurance policy in favour of the complainant is an admitted one.  It is also an admitted fact that the O.Ps. have settled the said insurance policy accounting to the deposit of two numbers of installments.  The allegations of complainant is that she had deposited Rs. 36,000/- in three installments @ Rs. 12,000/- per annum in her life insurance policy with the O.Ps vide policy no. LN - 120900019667 for insured her life.  Complainant has filed documents to that effect i.e. 3 nos. of premium deposit receipts vide receipt no. (i) A -5491222 dated 04.05.2009 issued by the company, (ii) receipt no. 1054 dated nil issued by one Hemraj Chandok & (iii) receipt no. 2026 dated 12.10.2011 issued by Hemraj Chandok.  Whereas the contentions of O.Ps No. 1 & 3 is that the complainant has deposited only two numbers of premiums with them and they have settled the insurance policy on the basis of surrender value on receipt of the application from the complainant.  They have also filed documents to that effect i.e. (i) statement of accounts of insurance proposer, (ii) payment details issued by HDFC Bank showing the payment made to the complainant, (iii) insurance proposal form, (iv) policy schedule, (v) policy details, (vi) surrender request form with application, (vii) surrender discharge form.During hearing of the case, the O.Ps. No. 1 & 3 have strictly denied that the O.P.No.2 – Niraj Chandok is not their authorized agent and O.P.No.4 –Kalipada Tarafdar is no way related with them. Now the question arose before us to decide that :

1. If the complainant paid 3 nos. of premiums towards deposit of her insurance policy, on what basis the O.P.No.1 & 3 are denying the same ?
2. Whether the O.P.No.2 – Niraj Chandok is their authorized agent particularly for the alleged insurance policy?
3. Whether the complainant is entitled for any relief, if so, to what extent ?

7. Coming to the first point, we have gone through the relevant documents filed by the complainant like (i) premium deposit receipts vide receipt no. (i) A -5491222 dated 04.05.2009 issued by the company, (ii) receipt no. 1054 dated nil issued by Hemraj Chandok, & (iii) receipt no. 2026 dated 12.10.2011 issued by Hemraj Chandok.  From the above documents it is well ascertained that the insurance company and their agent Hemraj Chandok have issued all the premium receipts in favour of the complainant.  Hence it is well established that complainant has paid 3 nos. of premiums installments against the insurance policy vide no. LN-120900019667 issued in her favour and in total she has paid Rs. 36,000/- to the insurance company.   

Further we have gone through the documents filed by the O.P. i.e. (i) statement of accounts of insurance proposer, (ii) payment details issued by HDFC Bank showing the payment made to the complainant, (v) policy details, (vi) surrender request form with application, (vii) surrender discharge form.From the documents filed by the O.P. it is well ascertained that they have received 2 nos. of premium from the complainant and the O.Ps have discharged a sum of Rs. 12374.65 in favour of the complainant as per the surrender application form submitted by the complainant. Now discussing about the 3^rd no. of installments premium, the O.Ps have totally silent about the receipts issued by Hemraj Chandok and not a single word have been uttered in their counter stating that the receipts are not belonged to their agent.Therefore, it is well established that the receipts are issued issued by Hemraj Chandok, who is the authorized agent of O.P., and the agent has collected the premiums from the complainant.We feel, though Hemraj Chandok has collected the installment premiums from the complainant but has not deposited with the insurance company and fraudulently kept with him instead of deposit the same with the insurance company, as such the statement of account shows the deposit of 2 nos. of installments in the account of complainant.Further it is well settled of law that if the authorized agent of the O.P.No.1 & 3 has collected the premiums than it is in his official capacity under the O.Ps.

8. Now coming to the second point it is ascertained from the proposal form and first premium receipt filed by the insurance company, which clearly shows that the Niraj Chandak is the agent who on 04.05.2009 obtained the insurance proposal form from the complainant after obtaining her signature thereon and on the basis of such proposal form, the insurance company has issued the alleged insurance policy in favour of the complainant.  Thus the pleas of O.Ps regarding that Niraj Chandak is not their authorized agent particularly for the alleged insurance policy, is totally false and misguidance to the Hon’ble Forum. Further it is also ascertained from the authorization issued by the O.P.No.2 – Niraj Chandak, wherein it is also mentioned that Niraj Chandak is the son of Hemraj Chandak, We feel, Niraj Chandak has obtained all the insurance premiums in the name of his father and issued 2 nos. of premium receipts in favour of the complainant for Rs. 12,000/- each.Instead of deposit the premium amounts of Rs. 12,000/- against each receipts, he has deposited only Rs. 12,000/- in the alleged insurance policy towards it premium instead of Rs. 24,000/-, by keeping Rs. 12,000/- with him in a fraudulent manner.Hence it can be safely concluded that the O.P. No.2 – Niraj Chandak, who is the authorized agent of the O.P.No.1 & 3 has intentionally grabbed the hard earning of the complainant.It is well settled of law that for any act of their agent, the company is liable.
    
9. From the above discussions, we feel that the O.P.No.2 – Niraj Chandak, who is the authorized agent of the O.P.No.1 & 3, has collected an amount of Rs. 12,000/- for two times from the complainant but did not deposit the 3^rd installment premium with the insurance company and kept with him, therefore, the O.P.No.1 & 3 has calculated only on the basis of two premiums. Instead of depositing the 3^rd premium, the said agent has grabbed the hard earnings of the complainant, which attracts the criminal offence in nature and not permissible in the eye of law, and the for the said deeds of the agent, the insurance company is fully liable, as the same causes loss of an amount of Rs. 12,000/- to the complainant.  For such act of the agent, the complainant must have suffered mental agony and financial loss, which compel the complainant to seek redress before this Forum.  Hence this order.

ORDER

        The complaint petition is allowed in part.  The O.P. No.1 & 3 being the insurance authority are herewith directed to refund the premium amount of Rs. 12,000/- being received by their agent i.e. O.P.No.2 alongwith interest @ 10% p.a. from 12.10.2011 and to pay Rs. 10,000/- towards compensation and Rs. 2,000/- towards cost of litigation to the complainant within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order, failing which the compensation amount shall carry interest 10% p.a. from the date of this order till payment.  Further the O.P. No. 1 & 3 are at liberty to recover the amount paid by them in favour of the complainant, from the concerned agent i.e. O.P. No. 2 in accordance with law.

        Since there is no specific allegations against the O.P.No.4, no order against him.

        Pronounced in the open Forum on this the 26^th day of June, 2018.

        Issue free copy to the parties concerned.