BEFORE THE DISTRICT FORUM: KURNOOL

Present: Sri. T.Sundara Ramaiah , B.Com B.L., President

And

Sri. M.Krishna  Reddy , M.Sc., M.Phil., Male Member

Monday the 28^th day of February , 2011

C.C.No 109/10

Between:

1.  V.S.Raghavendra Swamy,        S/o Ramaswamy, Post Master,

    H.No.1/24, Post office, Kadivella, Kurnool District-518 350.

2.  V.Prasanna Rani, D/o V.S.Raghavendra Swamy,

    H.No.1/24, Post office, Kadivella, Kurnool District-518 350.               

…Complainants

                                              -Vs-

1. Bajaj Alianz Life Insurance Company Limited,Represented by its Zonal Manager,

        White House, Life Style, Begumpet, Secunderabad-500 003.

    2. The Branch Incharge, Bajaj Alianz Life Insurance Company Limited,

        Door No.40/58, 2^nd floor, S.V.Complex, Kurnool-518 003. 

    3. Y.Ramesh Babu, Sales Manager, Bajaj Alianz Life Insurance Company Limited,

        H.No.B2 to B5, Ashwini complex, Opp- Public Garden, Station Road, Raichur-518 101.               

                  …OPPOSITE PARTIES

        This complaint is coming on this day for orders in the presence of Sri P.Siva Sudarshan, Advocate, for complainants, and opposite party No.1 set exparte and Sri Y.Jaya Raju, Advocate for opposite party No.2 and opposite party No.3 set exparte and upon perusing the material papers on record, the Forum made the following.

ORDER

(As per Sri. T.Sundara Ramaiah, President)

   C.C. No. 109/10

1.     This complaint is filed under section 11 and 12 of C. P. Act, 1986 praying:-

(a)    To direct the Opposite parties to refund the amount of Rs.15,000/- received from the complainant with interest at the rate of 24% p.a. from the date of deposit  dated 04-11-2007 till the date of realization or issue fixed deposit certificate in favour of second complainant.

(b)    To grant a sum of Rs. 25,000/- towards mental agony;

(c)    To Grant the cost of the complaint;

1. To grant any other relief as the Hon’ble Forum deems fit and proper in the circumstance of the case.

2.    The case of the complainants in brief is as under:-  Opposite party No.3 is representative of opposite party No.1.  Opposite party No.3 explained to the first complainant about the fixed deposit scheme run by opposite parties 1 and 2. The first complainant took a demand draft dated 04-11-2007 for Rs.15,000/- in the name of the company and hand over it to opposite party No.3, to deposit the same in the fixed deposit scheme run by the company.  Even after one year the complainants not received the fixed deposit receipt from the company.  On 09-07-2008 the complainant issued legal notice to opposite parties 1 and 3.  Opposite party No.3 received the said notice and gave reply notice with false allegations.  Before the legal service authority opposite party No.1 admitted receipt of demand draft from opposite party No.3.  The Mandal Legal Services Authority directed the complainants to approach the Consumer Forum against the opposite parties.  Hence the complaint.

3.     Opposite parties No.1 and 3 remained exparte.  Opposite party No.2 filed written version, stating that the complaint is not maintainable.  Opposite party did not receive any proposal for fixed deposit from opposite party No.3 along with demand draft bearing No.10965 dated 04-11-2007.  The said demand draft bearing No.10965 dated 04-11-2007 for Rs.15,000/- was received through the agent N.Poornachandra Rao in respective of one Pinjari Bhaskar of Chanugondla Village, Gudur Mandal of Kurnool District, with relevant  papers.  The said amount was received towards the premium on            11-12-2007.  Opposite party No.1 issued policy bearing No.77951723 in favour of Pinjari Bhaskar.  Y.Ramesh Babu opposite party No.3 never sent any proposal on behalf of the complainants.  M.Sanjeeva Reddy who appeared before the Mandal Legal Services Authority resigned from the company and joined in another firm.  Opposite party No.3 was sacked from the service by the opposite party.  No proposal was received from the complainants.  There is no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party.  The complaint is liable to be dismissed.

4.     On behalf of the complainants Ex. A1 to A5 are marked and sworn affidavit of first complainant is filed.  On behalf of the opposite party No.2 Ex.B1 and B2 are marked and sworn affidavit of the opposite party No.2 is filed.

5.     Both sides filed written arguments.

6.     The points that arise for consideration are:

1. Whether there is deficiency of service on the part of the Opposite Parties?

1. Whether the complainants are entitled to the reliefs as prayed for?

     (c)       To what relief?

7. POINT No.1 & 2:-  The second complainant is the daughter of first complainant.  It is the case of the first complainant that he wanted to deposit an amount of Rs.15,000/- in the name of his daughter opposite party No.2, that he obtained a D.D for Rs.15,000/- dated 04-11-2007, in the name of opposite party No.1 and that; he handed over it to opposite party No.3 to deposit the same in fixed deposit in the company in the name of complainant No.2.  The complainants in support of their contention that they obtained a Demand Draft for Rs.15,000/- relied on Ex.A1 and A2.  Ex.A1 is the copy of the demand draft dated 04-11-2007 drawn on opposite party No.1 Ex.A2 is the draft application form dated 04-11-2007.  Ex.A1 and A2 do not show that the complainants obtained the D.D.  The names of the complainants are not at all mentioned on Ex.A1 and A2.  Except the affidavit evidence of first complainant there is no independent evidence on record to show that he handed over the original of Ex.A1 along with the application for fixed deposit to opposite party No.3.  Admittedly prior to the filling of the present complaint the complainants got a legal notice issued to opposite party No.3.  Opposite party No.3 received the said notice and gave a reply notice Ex.A4 where in he clearly denied the receipt of demand draft of Rs.15,000/- from the complainants to invest in fixed deposit in the name of the second complainant.  There is no satisfactory evidence on record to show that the third opposite party received the demand draft for Rs.15,000/- dated 04-11-2007 from the complainants to invest the same in fixed deposit in the company.

8.     It is the contention of the opposite parties that the demand draft bearing No.10965 dated 04-11-2007 for Rs.15,000/- was received through its agent N.Poornachandra Rao along with relevant papers towards premium amount on 11-12-2007.  Opposite party No.2 filed Ex.B2 in support of its contention that the said demand draft for Rs.15,000/- was received towards the premium to issue Insurance Policy in the name of on Pinjari Bhaskar of Chanugondla Village.  There is also mention in Ex.B2 that the application for the policy along with demand draft was received through its agent N.Poornachandra Rao and policy bearing No.77951723 was issued with effect from 11-12-2007.  The demand draft said to be purchased by the complainants was received by the company along with relevant papers through its agent N.Poornachandra Rao towards the insurance premium.  There is no material on record to show that the said demand draft was received by the company through opposite party No.3 to invest the same in the company in the name of second complainant.  It is argued by the learned counsel appearing for complaint that opposite party No.3 is the agent of the company, that opposite party No.3 received the said demand draft to invest the same in the company and that opposite parties 1 and 2 can’t disown their liability.  In support of his contention he relied on a decision reported in IV (2004) CPJ 27 wherein it is held that the complainant is entitled to refund of deposited amount even though the agent of the company misappropriated the amount given by the complainant to invest the amount.  The facts of the present case are totally different from the facts of the case cited above.  In the present case on hand there is no material on record to show that the complainants handed over the original of Ex.A1 demand draft along with application for fixed deposit to opposite party No.3.  In the decision cited above the agent of the company issued receipts in letterhead acknowledging the receipt of amount from the parties.  In the present case admittedly no receipt was obtained by the complainants from opposite party No.3 evidencing that opposite party No.3 received the demand draft along with the application for deposit.  No deficiency of service is found on the part of opposite parties 1 and 2.

9.     In the result, the complaint is dismissed without cost.

Dictated to the stenographer, transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced by us in the open bench on this the 28^th day of February, 2011.

  
           Sd/-                                                                       Sd/-

MEMBER                                                              PRESIDENT

     APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses Examined

For the complainants : Nil                For the opposite parties : Nill

List of exhibits marked for the complainants:-

Ex.A1        Photo copy of Demand Draft dt.04-11-2007 for Rs.15,000/- issued by S.B.I. Mantralayam Branch.

Ex.A2.       Counter file for Rs.15,000/- dt.04-11-2007.

Ex.A3        Legal Notice dt. 09-07-2008 along with postal acknowledgement.

Ex.A4                Reply notice dt. 29-07-2008.

Ex.A5        Photo copy of Order copy of IInd Addl. District Judge cum Mandal Legal Service authority, Adoni, dt.19-01-2009.

List of exhibits marked for the opposite parties:-

Ex.B1        Photo copy of letter dt.21-12-2010 issued by Regional Manager, Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance company Limited, Hyderabad.

Ex.B2                Photo copy of D.D. adjustment particulars.

             Sd/-                                                                       Sd/-

     MALE MEMBER                                                         PRESIDENT

// Certified free copy communicated under Rule 4 (10) of the

A.P.S.C.D.R.C. Rules, 1987//

Copy to:-

Complainant and Opposite parties

Copy was made ready on :

Copy was dispatched on   :