Order-7.
Date-04/04/2018.
SMT. SANGITA PAUL, MEMBER.
This is an application u/s.12 of the C.P. Act, 1986.
Complainant, by filing this complaint states that one Mr. Souvik Mitra representing himself as agent of the OP approached complainant at his residence and told that complainant would be benefitted by the scheme having an attractive return. Upon such representation of the agent / employee complainant agreed for the policy for onetime payment of premium of Rs.2,00,000/-, complainant handed over the copy of his passport, Copy of Pan Card, Copy of Income Tax Return for the assessment year 2013-14 having gross annual income of Rs.1,69,678/- Copy of passbook, a cancelled cheque leaf and another cheque for the premium of the policy. Upon request of the said agent, complainant agreed for another policy for one time premium of Rs.5,00,00/- which was also paid by cheque. Complainant put his signatures on blank forms/ papers. Complainant received some documents by post. Complainant received phone calls in February / March 2017 for the deposit of premium of this policy for the year 2017. Complainant told that he agreed for the policy for one time premium, because his annual income is less that Rs.2,50,000/- From the booklet, complainant came to know that his income has been taken as Rs.6,00,000/-. The bank statement cannot be the proof of income for high premium of policy. Except the signature, complainant never filled up any part of the application of the Op, the form is filled up by the men of the OP according to their wish they did not consult with complainant. It appears that policy No. 501-3961817 has been issued for annual premium of Rs.2,00,000/- and policy No. 501 – 4018203 has been issued for annual premium of Rs.50,000/- Accordingly, complainant expressed his intention to close the said policies and complainant also requested to close the said policies immediately as it is based on false and fabricated statement, created by the OP. complainant is unable to pay the annual premium of the said policies. So complainant requested to close the policies and return back the deposited amount. The income of complainant has been manipulated by the employees of the Op. The letters of the booklet is too small to read and understand. Complainant states that such fake representation is illegal, arbitrary and has been done for malpractice of business and un-fair trade. For such act, complainant served a notice dated 17th July, 2017 complainant called the OP to produce the original application form and copy of IT return with original signature thereon. In the said notice, it has been, informed that all correspondences should be made to the advocate of complainant. As complainant never served any notice dated 17.07.2017, another letter has been served on 04.09.2017 to Bajaj & Bajaj Associates asking to furnish a copy of the said alleged notice and reply, served by complainant in reply of the copy of the said alleged letter and reply thereof has not been furnished. For such deficiency in service and unfair trade practice of the OP who did not comply the notice dated 17.07.2017 and representation dated 04.09.2017, complainant mentally suffered and was disturbed. Complainant is suffered for cheating his hard earned – money by unfair trade practice. The opposite party has to compensate the damages suffered by complainant. The Op neglected to provide minimum service. The OP did not perform his duties and obligations. The opposite party neglected to answer the letters dated 17.07.2017 and 04.09.2017served upon them. There is gross negligence on the part of the opposite party. It is well -settled principle of law that the claim of complainant has to be settled within reasonable time but in the instant case the OP failed to settle within time. It amounts to gross deficiency in service. Complainant is entitled to get return back the said sum of Rs.2,50,000/- complainant is entitled to get compensation for deficiency in service, mental agony and unfair trade practice. The business place of the opposite party is under P.S. – Park Street. It arose or in the month of January 2016, when the Op contacted with complainant and approached for policy.
In view of the above facts and circumstances, complainant prays for directing the Op to refund the sum of Rs.2,50,000/- being the amount received by the Op and also the interest at the rate of 18 percent per annum from the date of payment of said amount for 2 years 9 month’s amounting to Rs.7,87,750/-. Thus aggregating to Rs.3,28,750/- (Rupees three lakhs twenty eight thousand seven hundred and fifty) only, and also prays for paying further interest at the rate of 18 percent per annum the date of filing this complainant till realization of amount from the opposite party ‘Also prays for directing the OP to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- as damages by way of compensation for deficiency in service as well as for unfair trade practice of the OP complainant also prays for paying Rs.4,00,00/- only for litigation cost.
Notice, is sent to the Op on 04.01.2018. In spite of receiving the notice, Op failed to turn up on 09.02.2018. On 19.02.2018, OPs were absent on call. Complainant prays for ex parte hearing of the case. On the next date i.e. on 12.03.2018 complainant files E/chief. Op was absent on call. Ex parte argument was heard. Then we proceeded for delivery of judgment, because complainant‘s version remained uncontroverted.
Decision with Reasons
We have perused complaint petition, Evidence in chief of complainant, the photocopy of lawyer’s notice dated 17.07.2017 the photocopy of reply, the photocopy of letter dated 04.09.2017 and other documents lying on record. One Mr. Souvik Mitra approached complainant for doing an Insurance policy having good return. Complainant agreed for the policy for onetime payment of premium of Rs.2,00,000/- complainant submitted all important documents including income tax return for the assessment year 2013-2014 having gross annual income of Rs. 1,69,687/-, a cancelled cheque leaf, a cheque for the premium of the policy. Complainant received phone calls in February/March 2017 for the deposit of his premium of his policy for the year 2017. Upon request of the said agent, complainant also agreed for another policy for one time premium of Rs. 5,00,00/- complainant told that he agreed for the two policies for one time return, because his annual income is less than Rs.2,50,000/-. Except signature, complainant never filled up any part of the application form. The personnel of the Bharti AXA Life Insurance Co. filled up the form according to their wish. From the Bank statement, they inferred that the annual income of complainant, as per income tax return is Rs.6,00,000/-.The actual annual income of complainant as per income tax Return is Rs. 1,69,678 the annual premium of Line Insurance is Rs.2,50,000/- then it was not possible for complainant to pay such a high amount of Rs.2,50,000/-. In the complaint petition, it was stated that complainant agreed to take two policies, having one time premium and having a good return Insurance policy is the policy which is based on utmost faith. It is an agreement which is agreed by and between the parties. The agent mis-sold the policy to complainant. Complainant was moved by the sweet words of the agent and bought the policies believing in the words of agent. But they misguided complainant. It was not possible for him to give the second premium of two policies, and the amount, thus collected, by adopting unfair means, would be used for their gain. It is a policy of collecting amount from market for their ulterior gain. The policy document, annexed by complainant is a printed matter distributed to all policy holders. In this document, it was stated that complainant is permitted to cancel the policy within the free look period of 15 days. But complainant received those documents after the free look period. He has no option to cancel the policy. On 17.07.2017 complainant sent a notice to the Op. He wanted to know the reason of an adopting unfair means while taking the policy. He was told that he would have to give premium only for one time. Had it been known by complainant that it is not a policy of one time return he would not accept the policy. In the form, complainant signed, but the form was filled up by the staff of the Insurance Co. complainant signed in blank form and in the head, premium payment mode, it was written ‘Annual’, which complainant was not told at the time of taking the policy. In the next year, i.e. in 2017, complainant came to know that he has to give premium of Rs.2,50,000/-. Thus, it appears that Op is deficient in rendering proper service to its honest customer. So OP must give compensation for adopting unfair trade practice and deficiency in service. The forms are signed by complainant and the forms are filled up by the staff. Complainant was totally ignorant. The Op, thus, is guilty of unfair trade practice. Complainant had to pay twelve premiums, annually. Complainant is not interested to continue the policy based on false statement. But the insurance company is not interested in closing the policy. The company realized money by giving false representation. So the OP must be penalized for such unfair trade practice and deficiency in service.
In the result, the case succeeds Hence,
Ordered
That the case be and the same is allowed against the Op with cost of Rs.10,000/-.
Op is directed to return the policy amount of Rs.2,50,000/- to the complainant with 15 percent deduction thereof as administrative and other changes within one month from the date of this order.
Op is directed to pay compensation of Rs.10,000/- for mental agony, pain and harassment.
Op is also directed to pay Rs.5,000/- for adopting unfair trade practice, if collected, it will be deposited to this form.
Failure to comply with the order will entitle the complainant to put the order into execution u/s. 27 of the C.P. Act.
