New Complaint No.227 of 2023.
Date of Institution:26.10.2023.
Old Complaint No:262 of 2018.
Date of Institution:11.06.2018.
Date of order:26.12.2023.
1. Sat Kirpal Singh Nagra S/o S. Raghbir Singh
2. Ranjit Kaur W/o Sat Kirpal Singh Nagra
3. Manjodh Sar Kirpal Singh Nagra S/o Sat Kirpal Singh Nagra, Both through Sat Kirpal Singh Nagra.
All residents of Village Warah, P.O Lakhanpal, Tehsil and District Gurdaspur.
….............Complainants.
VERSUS
1. Bharti AXA Life Insurance Company Ltd. 2nd Floor, Unit 6&7, 3rd Floor, Canal Tower, Mall Road, Ludhiana – 141001, through its Senior Manager.
2. Jasbir Singh Gill C/o Bharti AXA Life Insurance Company Ltd. 2nd Floor, Unit 6&7, 3rd Floor, Canal Tower, Mall Road, Ludhiana – 141001.
….Opposite parties.
Complaint U/S 12 of Consumer Protection Act.
Present: For the Complainants: None.
For the Opposite Party No.1: Sh.Sandeep Ohri, Advocate.
Opposite Party No.2 exparte.
Quorum: Sh.Lalit Mohan Dogra, President, Sh.Bhagwan Singh Matharu, Member.
ORDER
Lalit Mohan Dogra, President.
Sat Kirpal Singh Nagra etc., Complainants (here-in-after referred to as complainants) has filed this complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, (here-in-after referred to as 'Act') against Bharti AXA Life Insurance Co. Ltd. Etc. (here-in-after referred to as 'opposite parties).
2. Briefly stated, the case of the complainants is that the opposite parties are Life Insurance Company. It is a sister concern of AIRTEL Company. It is pleaded that it was about 10th July, 2017 in the morning some lady called the complainant through the mobile phone of the opposite parties and told him that the AIRTEL Company proposes to install 4G Tower and required a site of 10' x 10' measurement in your village. It is further pleaded that in the afternoon Mr. Jasbir Singh Gill, i.e. the opposite party No. 2 repeated the same story and also told that the owner of the site shall be paid a monthly rent of Rs.30,000/-. It is further pleaded that the company shall also appoint the complainant as a CARE Taker against a monthly salary of Rs.17,000/- only. Thus Mr. Jasbir Singh Gill prompted and induced the complainant. It is further pleaded that thinking it a lucrative plan the complainant answered in positive. Mr. Jasbir Singh Gill contacted the complainant from his mobile No. 9311681916. It is further pleaded that the complainant was then asked to deposit a sum of Rs.30,000/-. He was also asked to supply the self-attested copy of Aadhaar Card and PAN Card of the complainant, his wife Ranjit Kaur and his son Manjodh Singh and the same were sent through courier at the address given below as advised by Mr. Gill:- "Mr. Satya Bharti AXA Life Insurance Co. Ltd., 2nd Floor, Dashmesh Complex, Pakhowal Road, Ludhiana - 141001". It is further pleaded that Mr. Jasbir Singh Gill i.e. the opposite party No. 2 informed the complainant that his AIRTEL 4G Tower Application No. AT-19815628SS has been approved. It is further pleaded that subsequently a sum of Rs.40,000/- was demanded by the opposite parties from the complainant being caretaker of proposed tower. It is further pleaded that cheque was again sent through courier at the address given above. It is further pleaded that the installation of 4G Tower has been approved and the necessary material and machinery is reaching shortly. But before that the complainant has to deposit a sum of Rs.75,000/- as security of the material. It is further pleaded that the complainant had deposited all the following sums of account as demanded by the opposite parties vide separate cheques:-
- Rs.30,000/-, cheque No. 139685 cleared on 15.07.2017, of CANARA Bank.
- Rs.40,000/-, cheque No. 032253, cleared on 17.08.2017, of Central Bank of India.
- Rs.75,000/-, cheque No. 139687 cleared on 25.08.2017, of CANARA Bank.
It is further pleaded that subsequently, it transpired that the total amount paid by the complainant has been converted and used by the opposite parties in the insurance policies of Smt. Ranjit Kaur wife of the complainant and Manjodh Satkirpal Singh son of the complainant. It is further pleaded that surprisingly enough, no proposal form for the purchase of the insurance policies in question was supplied to the complainant and no proposal form was got signed by the policy holders. It is further pleaded that the complainant has not signed the proposal forms. The signatures of the proposers appearing on the proposal forms are forged by the complainant. They have forged their signatures to make similarly with that of their signatures on Aadhaar Card being self-attested copies. It is further pleaded that no 4G Tower was installed as proposed by the complainant. It is further pleaded that complainant came to understand that the opposite parties by their false misrepresentation allured complainant to part with the above mentioned amount fraudulently and dishonestly. It is further pleaded that in fact there was no plan of the opposite parties to install any AIRTEL 4G Tower; rather it was a clever and mischievous plan to entrap the complainant to invest the amount in the insurance policies. It is further pleaded that the complainant is a retired employee and his wife is a household lady and their son Manjodh Singh is very new in service. They have no capacity to purchase such policies and to pay high rated yearly premiums. It is further pleaded that to make more clear and evident that the signatures of the complainant are forged, it is submitted that the proposal forms of Manjodh Sat Kirpal Singh is dated 22.08.2017 but on that day he was not available in the Punjab State as he is serving in Convergys India Services Pvt. Ltd. at Gurugram (Haryana) and he was present on duty there. It is further pleaded that names of the persons mentioned in the proposal forms as Financial Advisors / Agents etc. had never came into contact with the complainants. It is further pleaded that on being aware of the foul play, the complainant requested the opposite parties to refund the total amount paid by him as he had not made the payment for the insurance proposal rather it was done for getting installed AIRTEL 4G Tower in the land owned by them, but they have been avoiding it by one or the other excuses. Thereafter, the complainant has been requesting the opposite parties in writing / through E-mails to cancel all the three policies, but they have been putting off the matter. It is further pleaded that in this way the opposite parties has extorted a total amount of Rs.1,45,000/- by deceiving the complainant by unfair trade practices. It is further pleaded that due to this illegal act and conduct of the opposite parties the complainant has suffered great loss and also suffered mental agony, Physical harassment and inconvenience. It is further pleaded that there is a clear cut deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.
On this backdrop of facts, the complainant has alleged deficiency and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties and prayed that necessary directions may kindly be issued to the opposite parties to cancel all the three insurance policies and refund Rs.1,45,000/- to the complainant with interest @ 9 % P.A. till realization. The opposite parties be further directed to pay similar amount of Rs.1,45,000/- to the complainant as penalty and damages and Rs.25,000/- as litigation expenses, in the interest of justice.
3. Upon notice, the opposite party No.1 appeared through counsel and contested the complaint and filing their written reply by taking the preliminary objections that the present Complaint is false, frivolous, vexatious and abuse of the process of this Hon'ble Commission and therefore same is liable to be dismissed. The Complainant has not disclosed any cause of action to proceed against the answering opposite party and in absence of the same the present complaint is liable to be dismissed. It is further pleaded that on the basis of the proposal forms, the subject policies were issued to the complainant. Thus, the allegations herein are false, frivolous and untenable and a concocted story. Further all allegations are against the OP No. 2 who is neither the employee nor advisor of the company never he has any link with the company. It is further pleaded that the Complainants have not obtained the policies through any of agents/employees of answering OP. For obtaining the policies in question, the policy holder had availed the services of an independent Broker i.e. Sridhar Insurance Broker. An Insurance Broker is an independent entity licensed by Insurance Regulatory & Development Authority (IRDA), who advise their customers on their insurance needs and thereafter arrange insurance policy from any insurance company as per their own judgment and as per the customer's choice. It is further pleaded that the Insurance Companies do not enjoy any administrative control over the Insurance Brokers. All Insurance brokers are governed by the provisions of IRDA (Insurance Brokers) Regulations, 2002 and IRDA also entertain applications against Insurance Brokers. It is further pleaded that complainant has failed to make the said broker as party in the complaint. It is further pleaded that the present complaint is liable to be dismissed on the ground of Mis-Joinder and Non-Joinder of Parties. It is further pleaded that it is a settled principle of law that at the time of filling-up the proposal form, the agent acts as agent of insured and not of insurance company. No agent can be assumed to have authority from the insurer to write the answer in the proposal form. If an agent nevertheless does that, he becomes merely the amanuensis of the insured and his knowledge of the untruth or inaccuracy of any statement contained in the proposal form does not become the knowledge of the insurer. It is further pleaded that it is also a settled principle of law that if any person signs any document, it is presumed that he/she has signed the same after reading and understanding it properly. It is further pleaded that it is a settled principle of law that a principal can be held vicariously liable for the acts of an agent, only where such act was within the scope of the agent's authority. It is further pleaded that this Hon'ble Commission has no jurisdiction to entertain the present complaint. There was no deficiency of service or negligence on the part of replying OP. The complainant has failed to show that there was any deficiency in service or negligence on the part of replying OP. It is stated that as per the terms of the policy contract if the policy is not suitable, the policy holder may get his/her policy cancelled by returning the policy and policy documents within 15 days (Free Look Period) from the day the policy holder received the policy. It is further pleaded that the insurance company will return the premium paid to the complainant after making certain deductions specified therein. It is further pleaded that in the present case, the policy was dispatched to the complainant and the same was duly received by them. The policy holder after the receipt of the subject policy and policy documents did not approach OP and got their subject policies cancelled within Free Look period implying that the policy holder duly accepted the subject policy and its documents with its terms and conditions. It is further pleaded that the complaint is devoid of any merit and is liable to be dismissed. It is further pleaded that this Hon'ble Commission has no jurisdiction to entertain the present complaint. In the present complaint, the Complainant has alleged forgery, cheating, fabrication, mis-selling etc. The complainants have come up stories like installation of AIRTEL Tower and other various allegations. Such serious averments require a proper trial by a civil/criminal court and evidence has to be taken which is not possible in a summary trial. It is clear from the averments made in the complaint that the complainant has made such allegations; such matter in question involves complicated questions of facts and law as well as voluminous evidence, which can only be dealt with by a Civil Court. It is further pleaded that the Complainants have sought relief on the basis of allegations which are not supported by any documentary evidence to substantiate the same. Therefore, the complaint does not deserve any consideration by this Hon'ble Commission and merits dismissal at the threshold.
On merits, the opposite party No.1 have reiterated their stand as taken in legal objections and denied all the averments of the complaint and there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. In the end, the opposite party prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs.
4. Opposite party No.2 did not appear despite the service of notice and was proceeded against exparte vide order date 19.11.2018.
5. Learned counsel for the complainants has filed documents as Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-10.
6. Learned counsel for the opposite party No.1 has filed documents as Ex.OP-1 to Ex.OP-8 alongwith reply.
7. Rejoinder not filed by the complainant.
8. Written arguments not filed by both the parties. Oral arguments addressed by the counsel for the opposite party No.1
9. Inspite of number of adjournments and despite issuing of notice none has appeared on behalf of complainants. Case is of year 2018 and since no one has appeared on behalf of complainants and as such we are left no other option than to decide the complaint after going the documents on record. It is in the pleadings of the complainant that in the year 2017 one lady called the complainant on the mobile phone and disclosed that the Airtel Company has proposed to install 4G tower and required a site of 10' x 10' measurement in your village and in the afternoon Mr.Jasbir Singh Gill, opposite party No.2 repeated the same story and offered Rs.30,000/- as rent per month for the site. Opposite parties further promised to appoint complainant as care taker on monthly pay Rs.17,000/-. It is further pleaded that complainant was asked to deposit Rs.30,000/- and supply copy of Adhaar Card and Pan Card of himself, his wife Ranjit Kaur and son Manjodh Singh which were sent by the complainant accordingly. It is further pleaded that subsequently Rs.40,000/- was demanded by the opposite parties from the complainant being caretaker of proposed tower and cheque was sent to the opposite parties. It is further pleaded that it was told to the complainant that 4G tower has been approved and necessary material is reaching shortly and demanded Rs.75,000/- as security of the material. Accordingly, complainant had deposited Rs.1,45,000/- in total on different dates. However, later on it was transpired that total amount paid by the complainant was converted and used by the opposite parties in the insurance policies in the name of complainant, his wife Ranjit Kaur and son Manjodh Singh. It is further pleaded that complainant had not signed any proposal form and no such 4G tower was installed and in this way opposite parties fraudulently extracted amount of Rs.1,45,000/- from the complainant and issued policies of insurance without knowledge and consent of the complainant and his family members, which amounts to deficieny in service.
10. On the other hand counsel for the opposite party No.1 has argued that opposite party No.2 i.e. Jasbir Singh Gill is neither employee nor advisor of the company and he has no link with the company and the subject policies have been obtained by the complainants by availing the services of an independent broker. It is further argued by the counsel for the opposite party No.1 that if the policies of insurance were not acceptable to the complainants, the complainants were within their right to return the policies and get the same cancelled with 15 days Free Look Period and as such there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party No.1.
11. Opposite party No.2 remained exparte.
12. To prove their case complainant No.1 has placed on record his affidavit, copy of welcome letter and policy schedule Ex.C1 in the name of Smt.Ranjit Kaur, copy of welcome letter and policy schedule in the name of Satkirpal Raghbir Singh Nagra Ex.C2, copies of proposal form Ex.C3 and Ex.C4, copy of policy document Ex.C5 with life assured Manjodh proposal form Ex.C6, copy of mail for cancellation of policy Ex.C7 and Ex.C8, copy of reply by opposite party No.1 Ex.C9 and copy of team assistance report Ex.C10 whereas opposite party No.1 has placed on record copies of proposal forms Annexure R-1 to Annexure E-3, copies of personal details Annexure R-4 to Annexure R-6, copy of policy document Annexure R-7 and copy of cancellation request Annexure R-8.
13. Perusal of record shows that the subject policies had been issued in the name of complainant, his wife Smt.Ranjit Kaur and his son Manjodh Singh and date of commencement of the policies were 17.07.2017. Perusal of mail Ex.C7 which is of 30.10.2017 shows that complainant has written a letter for cancellation of the policies and has stated therein that complainants were allured with a false promise for installation of tower and further having been assured of Rs.14,000/- per month as salary as a caretaker. Thereafter, second mail was issued on 31.10.2017 to the opposite party No.1 for cancellation of the policies. It is the plea of the complainant that complainants had immediately after coming to know about fraud had intimated the opposite party No.1 within 15 days i.e. Free Look Period for cancellation of the policies. However, perusal of first premium date is mentioned as 17.07.2017 and the mail for the first time has been sent on 30.10.2017 after more than three months. Meaning thereby it is proved on record that the complainants failed to get the policies cancelled within 15 days Free Look Period and as such the plea regarding having been allured by Mr.Jasbir Sigh Gill i.e. opposite party No.2 to apply for tower seems to be after thought. Moreover, perusal of proposal forms shows that all the proposal forms are duly signed by the proposers in all the columns meant for the signatures of the applicants and all the proposal forms also have photographs of the proposers on the same ways. It is pleaded by the complainants that complainants had never signed the proposal forms at any time. The signatures of the complainants on the copies of Adhaar Card attached with the application Ex.OP-1 clearly match with the signatures affixed on the proposal forms which shows that complainants voluntarily purchased the polices of insurance and after purchasing the said policies the complainants were within their right to get the same cancelled within 15 days Free Look Period but in the present case the cancellation mails had been sent after more than three months which shows that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.
14. Accordingly, present complaint being without any merit is ordered to be dismissed with no order as to costs.
15. The complaint could not be decided within the stipulated period due to heavy pendency of Court Cases, vacancies in the office and due to pandemic of Covid-19.
16. Copy of the order be communicated to the parties free of charges. After compliance, file be consigned to record.
(Lalit Mohan Dogra)
President
Announced: (B.S.Matharu)
Dec. 26, 2023 Member
*YP*
