STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, UNION TERRITORY, CHANDIGARH.

APPEAL NO.2306 OF 2008

Sh. Mohan Singh son of Sh. Thakur Singh resident of H.No.644, B-1, Ratpur Colony, Pinjore, District Panchkula, Haryana.

                                                ………Appellant.

Versus

1.      Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Co. Ltd., G.E. Plaza, Air Port Road, Yerawada, Pune, Maharashtra through its Managing Director.

2.      Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Co. Ltd. through Regional Operation Manager, Regional Office SCO No.215-217, 4^th Floor, Sector 34-A, Chandigarh.

3.      Branch Manager, Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Co. Ltd., #4^th Floor, Shangai Tower, Feroze Gandhi Market, Ludhiana 141 001.

4.      Mrs. Anju Saini, Agent, Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Co. Ltd., W/o Amit Saini S/o Sh. Karam Singh Saini, 278, B-2, Near Khera, Abdulahapur Colony, Pinjore, District Panchkula, Haryana.

5.      Sh. Harpreet Singh Gill, Agent, Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Co. Ltd. S/o Sh. Sukhdev Singh, Navi Abadi, Near Gurudwara, Anandpur Sahib, Punjab.

…Respondents.

BEFORE:            HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRITAM PAL (RETD.), PRESIDENT.

HON’BLE MAJ. GEN. S. P. KAPOOR (RETD.), MEMBER.

                        HON’BLE MRS. NEENA SANDHU, MEMBER.

PRESENT:            Sh. Vishal Sodhi, Advocate for the appellant.

                        Sh. P. S. Batta, Advocate for respondents No.1 to 3.

                        Smt. Anju Saini, Respondent No.4 in person.

                        None for respondent No.5.

MAJ. GEN. S. P. KAPOOR (RETD.), MEMBER.

1.                     This is an appeal against the order of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, U.T., Chandigarh (for short hereinafter to be referred as District Forum) dated 8.7.2009 passed in complaint case No.927 of 2009 : M/s. Fashion Shoppe Gallery Vs. National Insurance Company Limited.

2.                     Briefly stated the case of the complainant is that on calling by OPs No.3 and 5 namely Harpreet Singh Gill and Mrs. Anju Saini, he attended a seminar, which was arranged at a local office of OP at Pinjore. The complainant, it was averred, opted for a life insurance policy in his name for the insured sum of Rs.2 Lacs and deposited an amount of Rs.20,000/- only for eight subsequent years for availing the services of life insurance cover. It was next averred that the complainant was assured that he would receive complete papers of the policy within a period 1 ½ month but no such policy papers were received by him during this period. The complainant also contacted OP No.5 who told him to wait for one month more but in the month of December, 2005 the complainant on non receipt of the policy, visited office of OP at Pinjore and the same was found closed. On enquiry, it was informed to the complainant by the said office that the said office was being run under the Branch Office at Ludhiana. On 14.2.2006, the complainant visited Ludhiana Branch and made complaint against OP No.4 regarding defrauding the complainant to Sh. Vijay Kalia, STM who further assured the complainant that OP No.4 would release the insurance policy very soon. When all the efforts of the complainant went in vain, he met Sh. Rakesh Datt, Regional Operation Manager who admitted the liability of Rs.20,000/- and also acknowledged the issuance of receipt of Rs.27,000/- buy their agent. As per the complainant, he also failed to do anything either for refund of Rs.20,000/- or to get the insurance policy issued. Alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of OPs, the complainant had filed the present complaint seeking refund of Rs.20,000/- and further sought an amount of Rs.2 Lacs equivalent to the insurance cover besides Rs.1 Lac as compensation and Rs.5,000/- as costs of litigation. The complainant had also sought a sum of Rs.7,000/- which he spent on personal visits to the office of OP at Chandigarh and Ludhiana.

3.                     The version of OPs No.1 to 3 in their joint reply is that the complainant had not availed any services of OPs as alleged and rather, he had been cheated by someone who had taken away his money in a fraudulent manner. As per these OPs, neither any money had been received by them from the complainant nor he was a consumer qua the OPs. These OPs had also denied the averment of having any of their offices at Pinjore and also denied having organized any seminar by them at Pinjore. OPs had, however, admitted the averment of OP No.4 – Sh. Harpreet Singh Gill being their agent. As per these OPs, the complainant might had met OP No.4 but when no amount had been received in the office of OP No.4, the complainant was not entitled to issuance of any policy by OPs No.1 to 3. Pleading no deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on their part, these OPs had prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

4.                     None appeared on behalf of OPs No.4 and 5 despite service and they were proceeded against exparte by the learned District Forum.

5.                     The learned District Forum, in its analysis of the complaint, recorded in the impugned order that the complainant had failed to prove that he paid a sum of Rs.20,000/- to OP No.5 (Mrs. Anju Saini) being authorized agent of OPs No.1 to 3 as the person who signed on behalf of OPs No.1 to 3 on the acknowledge (C-1), had not given his/her agency licence number. As per the learned District Forum, this acknowledgement was purported to had been issued against proposal No.004151414 but the complainant had led no evidence to show that this proposal number belonged to OPs No.1 to 3. In the view of the learned District Forum, it might not be disputed that one Anju Saini at one stage having agency codeNo.1000140721 allotted by the branch office at Ludhiana was the agent of OP No.1 but the complainant had not proved that the amount of Rs.20,000/- was received by the said Anju Saini during subsistence of her agency and in the manner at Pinjore. As per the learned District Forum, the complainant had also failed to prove that OPs No.1 to 3 at any stage had their office situated at Pinjore and he paid any amount to the OPs or to their authorized agents. The learned District Forum after a perusal of letter placed on record by OPs No.1 to 3 opined that as per this letter, it was clear to the learned District Forum that Mrs. Anju Saini was appointed as Insurance Agent  and her address was of H.No.576, BRS Nagar, Ludhiana. Thus, in the view of the learned District Forum, somebody impersonated as Anju Saini had committed cheating with the complainant by issuing acknowledgments (C-1, C-4 to C-7). Thus, as per the learned District Forum, no liability could be fastened on the OPs on the basis of forged and fabricated acknowledgment receipts. In view of its above observations, finding no merit in the complaint, the learned District Forum dismissed the same.

6.                     Aggrieved by the said order of learned District Forum, the complainant has filed the present appeal. The appeal having been taken on board, notices were sent to the respondents and record of complaint case was summoned from the District Forum concerned. Sh. Vishal Sodhi, Advocate appeared on behalf of the appellant (complainant) whereas Smt. Anju Saini, respondent No.4 (OP No.5) appeared in person. Respondent No.5 namely Sh. Harpreet Singh Gill (OP No.4) could not be served as summoned issued to him were received back unserved. Thus, the service of Sh. Harpreet Singh Gill was dispensed with as admittedly, he is an agent of OPs No.1 to 3 and these OPs had been duly served along with OP No.5 the other agent Ms. Anju Saini. On the date of arguments i.e. 30.4.2010, Sh. Vishal Sodhi, Advocate appeared for the appellant whereas Ms. Anju Saini, respondent No.4 appeared in person. Initially, none appeared for OPs No.1 to 3 but subsequently, Sh. P. S. Batta, Advocate appeared on behalf of these OPs.

7.                     Mrs. Anju Saini filed her written reply in which she has stated that she was appointed as authorized agent by OPs No.1 ot 3 and had been issued Agency No.1000140721 by its Ludhiana Branch. She has further admitted organization of a camp in Pinjore in September 2005 along with two other agents of the company i.e. Sh. Harpreet Singh Gill and Sh. Kuldeep Kumar. She has admitted to have sold along with other agents jointly, various insurance policies and has also admitted collection of premiums from various customers including the complainant. She has also admitted that an amount of Rs.20,000/- had been received by her from the complainant and the same was further deposited with the OPs at Ludhiana Branch. It has also been stated in the written statement that she was not responsible to deposit the payment of the premium collected as is evident from the affidavit given by Sh. Harpreet Singh Gill and Sh. Kuldeep Kumar both agents of the company. Her categoric submission is that she had deposited the amount after collection from the complainant with Sh. Harpreet Singh Gill and the other agent Sh. Kuldeep Kumar and if the policy had not been issued to the complainant, she was in no way responsible for the same. Mrs. Anju Saini also placed before the Bench a copy of affidavit given by Sh. Kuldeep Kumar and Sh. Harpreet Singh Gill in which it has been stated that they are I.Cs of Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Company Limited. It has also been stated in the affidavit that Ms. Anju Saini w/o Sh. Amit Saini R/o Pinjore has been appointed as an employee of the company who is responsible for collection of money for the company. It has further been stated that Ms. Anju Saini had no responsibility with regard to the amount collected as premium as these two persons i.e. Sh. Kuldeep Kumar and Sh. Harpreet Singh Gill were responsible for such collected amount and Ms. Anju Saini who was only an employee had no further role to play in the matter of such collection.

8.                     Sh. Vishal Sodhi, Advocate, learned counsel for the appellant (complainant) submitted that in view of categoric admission on the part of Ms. Anju Saini that an amount of Rs.20,000/- had been received from the complainants by her for issuance of a policy, which admittedly was never issued, the case of the complainant stands clearly proved and therefore, the impugned order needs to be set aside and the complaint needs to be allowed.

9.                     Sh. P. S. Batta, Advocate, who subsequently appeared on behalf of OPs No.1 to 3, submitted that the receipt placed on file is a fake receipt and that OPs No.1 to 3 had no office whatsoever at Pinjore. His next submission was that Sh. Harpreet Singh Gill was an agent of the complainant and if he had collected any amount from him, then the liability  for the same does not lye on the Insurance Company. He emphatically submitted that it is totally a false and frivolous complaint and the receipt indicating payment of Rs.20,000/- is a fake document and does not pertain to OPs No.1 to 3. Thus, his submission was that the impugned order is just and therefore, it be upheld.

10.                   We have gone through the record on file as well as the impugned order and have heard the learned counsel for the parties.

11.                   In view of the submissions of Ms. Anju Saini before the Bench and keeping in view the contents of affidavit of Sh. Harpreet Singh Gill and Sh. Kuldeep Kumar, it is now quite apparent that the complainant had paid a sum of Rs.20,000/- towards the issuance of an insurance policy, to Ms. Anju Saini and Sh. Harpreet Singh Gill who admittedly are the agents/employee of OPs No.1 to 3. It is also to be kept in view that the only persons who could prove any falsity in the instant complaint were Ms. Anju Saini and Sh. Harpreet Singh Gill. Ms. Anju Saini has confirmed the case of the complainant whereas Sh. Harpreet Singh Gill has not come to contest the case. It was incumbent upon the Insurance Company, whose agent Sh. Harpreet Singh Gill is, to produce him before the Bench or to file his affidavit in this context to prove any falsity that existed in the complaint but OPs have also chosen to keep quiet about the matter even though they have admitted that Sh. Harpreet Singh Gill is their agent. OPs No.1 to 3 have failed to file any evidence from Sh. Harpreet Singh Gill to counter the allegations of the complainant. In such circumstances, we have no hesitation in concluding that the allegations of the complainant are true as these have also now been  corroborated by written reply of Ms. Anju Saini, one of the agents of OPs No.1 to 3. It is thus now proved that the complainant had paid a sum of Rs.20,000/- to the OPs for issuance of an insurance policy, which has not been issued. It clearly amounts not only to a deficiency in service on the part of the agent and the company but also is an unfair trade practice. It is also a settled law that for any deficiency on the part of agent, the principle is equally liable to compensate the loss. In view of the written reply filed by Ms. Anju Saini and the affidavit of Sh. Harpreet Singh Gill and Sh. Kuldeep Singh produced before the Bench by Ms. Anju Saini, we are also of the opinion that there is no deficiency in service qua this OP i.e. Ms. Anju Saini.

12.                   In view of the foregoing discussion, the appeal is allowed and the impugned order is set aside. Consequently, the complaint is allowed and the OPs No.1 to 4 are now directed to refund the amount of Rs.20,000/- paid by the complainant to him along with interest @6% per annum from the date of deposit till payment for the loss of interest to the complainant for denial of this amount to him. They are further directed to pay the complainant another sum of Rs.20,000/- as compensation for mental agony and physical harassment along with costs of litigation, which we quantify as Rs.2,100/-. OPs No.1 to 4 are directed to comply with the order within a period of one month from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order failing which the amount of compensation of Rs.20,000/- shall carry penal interest @9% per annum from the date of order till actual payment.

13.                   Copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge.

Pronounced.

6^th April, 2010.

[JUSTICE PRITAM PAL]

PRESIDENT

[MAJ. GEN. S. P. KAPOOR (RETD.)]

MEMBER

[MRS. NEENA SANDHU]

MEMBER

Ad/-

APPEAL NO.2306 OF 2008

PRESENT:            Sh. Vishal Sodhi, Advocate for the appellant.

                        Sh. P. S. Batta, Advocate for respondents No.1 to 3.

                        Smt. Anju Saini, Respondent No.4 in person.

                        None for respondent No.5.

                                                …..

                        Vide our detailed order of even date recorded separately, this appeal filed by the complainant has been allowed.