DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BARNALA, PUNJAB.
Complaint Case No : 624/2016
Date of Institution : 31.08.2016
Date of Decision : 27.07.2017
Rupinder Singh s/o Sh. Maghar Singh resident of H. No. B-XI-1410, Gobind Colony, Gali No. 4, Barnala, District Barnala, Punjab.
…Complainant
Versus
1. Axis Bank Limited, Aggarsain Chowk, Barnala through its Branch Manager.
2. Max Life Insurance Limited, 2047-A, B Mall Road, Near Bahia Fort, Bathinda through its Branch Manager.
…Opposite Parties
Complaint Under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
Present: Sh. RK Singla counsel for the complainant.
Sh. AK Jindal counsel for opposite party No. 1.
Sh. Lokeshwar Sewak counsel for opposite party No. 2.
Quorum.-
1. Shri S.K. Goel : President
2. Ms. Vandna Sidhu : Member
3. Shri Tejinder Singh Bhangu : Member
ORDER
(SHRI S.K. GOEL PRESIDENT):
The complainant Rupinder Singh has filed the present complaint against Axis Bank Limited, Barnala opposite party No. 1 and Max Life Insurance Limited, Bathinda opposite party No. 2 under Consumer Protection Act (in short the Act).
2. The facts leading to the present complaint are that the complainant is having Saving Bank Account No. 912010036476476 with the opposite party No. 1 who is the Authorized Agent of opposite party No. 2. It is further submitted that the complainant is suffering from Retinitis Pig Mentose due to which he is unable to read and write properly and can only put his initials.
3. It is alleged that on 23.1.2013 the complainant alongwith his brother Jatinder Singh visited the opposite party No. 1, who advised the complainant to invest the amount in Fixed Deposit for Rs. 95,000/- with the opposite party No. 1 for three years and get free life insurance policy for his life for a sum of Rs. 3,00,000/-. On the assurance of opposite party No. 1 the complainant issued a cheque for Rs. 95,000/- dated 23.1.2013 of Axis Bank, Barnala and handed over the same to the opposite party No. 1.
4. It is further alleged that the opposite party No. 1 asked the complainant to fill/sign some blank papers/forms for fixed deposit purpose and complainant signed the same as a formality of the fixed deposit. Thereafter, the opposite party No. 1 told the complainant that his insurance policy and FDR will be sent by post after completing all the formalities.
5. It is further alleged that in the month of March 2013 the complainant received one letter from opposite party No. 2 indicating insurance policy No. 876670530 dated 31.1.2013. Then the complainant alongwith his brother Jatinder Singh visited the opposite party No. 1 and told them that the complainant has not received any insurance policy and FDR. On this the opposite party No. 1 told that the said letter is sufficient and to bring the said letter on the date of maturity and he will get his FDR maturity amount and in case of any mis-happening with the complainant his nominee will get the insured amount alongwith FDR amount alongwith up to date interest.
6. It is further alleged that at the end of three years i.e maturity period of FDR the complainant approached the opposite party No. 1 to get the FDR maturity amount but opposite party No. 1 avoided the complainant may times and ultimately in the month of July 2016 they flatly told the complainant that there is no FDR in his name with the opposite party No. 1 and further told him not to come to opposite party No. 1 for this purpose and go to opposite party No. 2 to know the fate of his insurance policy. Then, the complainant approached the opposite party No. 2 to get the maturity amount of his FDR but they told the complainant that opposite party No. 2 did not deal in FDR business and there is no amount of complainant lying with opposite party No. 2 and advised him to visit the opposite party No. 1 for the maturity amount of his FDR. Thereafter, the complainant again approached the opposite party No. 1 to get maturity value of his FDR but the opposite party No. 1 misbehaved with the complainant. Thus there is a deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. Therefore, the present complaint is filed seeking the following reliefs:-
1) The opposite parties may be directed to pay Rs. 95,000/- i.e FDR amount alongwith interest from the date of deposit till realization.
2) To pay Rs. 11,000/- as litigation expenses.
3) To pay Rs. 1,00,000/- as compensation for mental agony and harassment.
4) Any other relief which this Forum deems fit.
7. Upon notice of this complaint the opposite party No. 1 has filed written statement taking legal objections interalia on the grounds of locus standi, cause of action, frivolous complaint, no jurisdiction, not a consumer dispute, bad for mis-joinder and non joinder of necessary parties, abuse of process of law, barred by limitation and opposite party No. 1 was only the corporate Agent of the insurance company.
8. On merits, they admitted that the complainant maintained his saving account with the answering opposite party. It is submitted that the complainant never approached the opposite party No. 1 rather he approached the employees of opposite party No. 2 and purchased the policy from them. The opposite party No. 1 provided the services to his customers for banking only and on the direction of their customers the answering opposite party transferred the amounts from their account in favour of concerned persons.
9. It is further submitted that the complainant himself issued a cheque in favour of the opposite party No. 2 and payment of the cheque had been duly debited in the account of the complainant when the cheque was presented by the opposite party No. 2 in clearing. The complainant not signed the form for purchase of insurance policy or FDR in the presence of the employees of the answering opposite party.
10. It is further submitted that if the complainant received any policy from opposite party No. 2 then company has given free look period of 15 days and if the person does not agree to purchase the policy then he can refuse to accept the policy from the issuance company. It is further submitted that the complainant never approached the answering opposite party as he is well aware that he purchased the insurance policy from the opposite party No. 2. They have denied the other allegations of the complainant and prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.
11. The opposite party No. 2 also filed written statement taking legal objections interalia on the grounds of no deficiency in service, cause of action, premature, not a consumer, no jurisdiction, complainant has not come to this Forum with clean hands and concealed the material facts, abuse of process of law, no locus standi and complaint is time barred. Further, it is submitted that on 28.1.2013 the answering opposite party received the proposal form No. 876670530 and illustration which were duly signed by the complainant and on the basis of this proposal form, the policy was issued and dispatched at the address of the complainant. The policy was timely delivered at the address of the complainant. Even a verification call was also made to him before issuance of policy which was cleared by the complainant, so the complainant was well aware of the terms and conditions of the policy in question.
12. On merits, it is submitted that the complainant had purchased the insurance policy with his own sweet will and without any pressure as per his own requirement. The insurance policy was issued on the basis of duly signed proposal form as well as declaration and all the documents of the policy were sent to the complainant but he never raised any objection. The complainant never challenged the insurance policy nor he made any complaint within the Free Look Period of the policy, which amounts to admission on the part of complainant. Further, the opposite party No. 2 acted as per the terms and conditions of the policy. So, there is no deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on their part and finally prayed for the dismissal of the present complaint.
13. In order to prove his case, the complainant tendered in evidence his own affidavit Ex.C-1, copy of pass book Ex.C-2, copy of slip of doctor Ex.C-3, copy of letter dated 31.1.2013 Ex.C-4, copy of policy document Ex.C-5, copy of proposal form Ex.C-6, copy of welcome calling sheet Ex.C-7, copy of letter dated 30.1.2013 Ex.C-8, copy of letter dated 31.1.2013 Ex.C-9, copy of receipt and report Ex.C-10 and closed the evidence.
14. To rebut the case of the complainant, the opposite party No. 1 tendered in evidence affidavit of Harvinder Singh Branch Head Ex.O.P-1/1, copy of account opening form Ex.O.P-1/2, copy of account statement Ex.O.P-1/3 and closed the evidence. The opposite party No. 2 also tendered in evidence affidavit of G.S. Talwar Manager Ex.O.P-2/1, copy of proposal form Ex.O.P-2/2, copy of illustration Ex.O.P-2/3, copy of terms and conditions Ex.OP-2/4, copy of ECS bounce letter Ex.OP-2/5, copy of insurance premium receipts Ex.OP-2/6 and Ex.OP-2/7, copy of PAN Card Ex.OP-2/8 and closed the evidence.
15. We have heard the learned counsels for the parties and have gone through the record on the file.
16. The complainant has alleged in the complaint that he alongwith his brother Jatinder Singh visited the Axis Bank opposite party No. 1 for investing Rs. 95,000/- in the FDR and he signed some blank papers/forms for FD purpose at the instance of the opposite party No. 1 and the maturity of the FDR was stated to be three years. However, after three years when he approached the opposite party, opposite party No. 1 told that there was no FDR in his name and it was in fact the insurance policy issued by the opposite party No. 2. Thus, the learned counsel for the complainant has contended that the opposite parties No. 1 and 2 in connivance with each other have cheated the complainant. Moreover the complainant is suffering from Retinitis Pig Mentose since birth and he has never intended to purchase any such insurance policy.
17. On the other hand, the opposite party No. 1 bank has submitted that the complainant having a Saving Account in the bank and they are providing the services to the customers for banking only as per the directions of their customers. The learned counsel for the opposite party No. 1 further contended that the complainant purchased the policy from the insurance company (opposite party No. 2) and the complainant himself issued a cheque in favour of opposite party No. 2 and payment of the cheque has been duly debited in the account of the complainant. It is further contended that the complainant never invested the money in the FDR but purchased insurance policy from opposite party No. 2 to cover his life risk.
18. The learned counsel for the opposite party No. 2 insurance company has contended that the complainant submitted his duly signed proposal form after duly understanding the terms and conditions of the policy concerned. That after receiving the proposal form the policy as per the request of the complainant was issued and the documents thereof was dispatched to the complainant and the same was timely delivered. The learned counsel further contended that the complainant never challenged nor made any complaint within the Free Look Period of the policy. The complainant is bound by the insurance contract which is governed by the terms and conditions. It is further contended that there is no fraud/cheating was practised by the opposite parties.
19. After going through the pleadings and arguments of both the parties, the following controversies are involved in the present case.-
1) Firstly, whether the complainant has approached the opposite party No. 1 for getting FDR of Rs. 95,000/- but instead of preparing the FDR the opposite party issued the insurance policy in connivance with opposite party No. 2. Thus, it is alleged that the opposite parties in connivance with each other have played fraud upon the complainant.
2) Secondly, it is also a controversy to be decided whether the signatures of the complainant who is suffering from Retinitis Pig Mentose were taken on the blank printed papers and the contents of the forms were never told by the opposite parties to the complainant.
3) Thirdly, whether the complainant intended one time investment for getting FDR or to get insurance policy for life.
20. It is well established principle of law that the Consumer Protection Act and the machinery therein cannot be effectively utilized for determining complicated questions of fraud and cheating as proceedings in Consumer Fora are summary in nature.
21. The Hon'ble Apex Court held in case titled Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Versus Munimahesh Patel 2006 (IV) CPJ-1:-
“Proceedings before the Commission are essential summary in nature and adjudication of issues which involve disputed factual question should not be adjudicated........ The nature of the proceedings before the Commission as noted above, are essentially in summary nature. The factual position was required to be established by documents. Commission was required to examine whether in view of the disputed facts it would exercise the jurisdiction. The State Commission was right in its view that the complex factual position requires that the matter should be examined by an appropriate Court of Law and not by the Commission.”
22. Same view also finds support from the orders of the Hon'ble State Commission, Punjab, Chandigarh in case titled The Branch Manager, Punjab National Bank and Another Versus Malkiat Singh decided on 14.8.2015 in First Appeal No. 486 of 2014.
23. In the light of the ibid judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India and Hon'ble State Commission, Punjab, Chandigarh and going through the nature of the controversies to be proved in the present case, we are of the opinion that the matters referred to above are required to be proved by leading evidence by both the parties and not in summary procedure. Therefore, it would be desirable that this case is not to be dealt with by this Forum and could be relegated to the Civil Court.
24. As a result of the above discussion, the present complaint is dismissed accordingly. However, the complainant is at liberty to approach to the Court of competent jurisdiction, if so advised. However, the time spent by the complainant from the date of filing of the present complaint till the date of this order will not be counted for the purpose of limitation. No order as to costs or compensation. Copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of costs. The file be consigned to the records.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN FORUM:
27th Day of July 2017
(S.K. Goel)
President
(Vandna Sidhu)
Member
(Tejinder Singh Bhangu)
Member
