BEFORE THE DISTT. CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, ROPAR

                        Consumer Complaint No. : 230 of 24.12.2020

                        Date of decision           :   03.10.2022

Narinder Pal Singh aged about 74 years son of Late Sh. Santa Singh, resident of VPO Thana, Tehsil Sri Anandpur Sahib, District Rupnagar  

                                                          ......Complainant

                                             Versus

1. Bharti Axa Life Insurance Company Limited, SCO-208-209 2^nd Floor, Sector 34-A, Chandigarh Pin Code 160022 through its Branch Manager at Chandigarh.  
2. Vikas Yadav, agent C/o Bharti Life Insurance Company, SCO No.82-83, Mugal Canal, Karnal,
2.  

                                                                   ...Opposite Parties

                         Complaint under Consumer Protection Act

QUORUM

                         SH. RANJIT SINGH, PRESIDENT

                         SMT. RANVIR KAUR, MEMBER

ARGUED BY

Sh. Harjeet Singh, Adv. for complainant

Sh. Arvind Kumar Rishi, Adv. counsel for O.P.  No.1

Complaint not admitted against OP No.2

ORDER

SH. RANJIT SINGH, PRESIDENT

The present order of ours will dispose of the above complaint filed under Consumer Protection Act, by the complainant against the Opposite Party on the ground that the complainant is 74 years old and has no such financial capacity to pay further installments of the insurance policies issued by the OP. Complainant is not having any source of income to think about buying these insurance policies, all savings of his life has been looted by the OP by using unfair trade practices and playing fraud. OP has not physically got signed the proposal form from the complainant nor eve3r explained about the terms of the policy and with regard to free look period in insurance policy. Complainant has a saving account in HDF Bank,  Nurpur Bedi and UCO Bank in Village Jhajj, Tehsil Anandpur Sahib, District Rupnagar. The OP No.2 has got information from the said bank regarding the amount lying in the said banks. In the month of October 2018, OP No.2 made a telephone call to the complainant that they are in business of installation of telephone towers in the villages and thereafter representative of OP namely Vikas Yadav visited the house of the complainant and said thaty they will pay an amount of Rs.42,000/- per month rent after the commissioning of tower and the complainant was asked to make the payment the insurance of the telephone tower and its equipments complainant was assured and allured by the said agent of the OP that he will get assured monthly returns in lieu of the payments he would make. Upon being allured the complainant made a payment of Rs.34,199.76 on 06.12.2018 vide cheque No.000011, Rs.77,999/- on 04.01.2019 vide cheque number 000015, Rs.47,700/- on 01.02.2019 vide cheque No.000017, Rs.95,000/- on 26.03.2019 vide cheque No.001323, Rs.50,000/- on 29.05.2019 vide cheque No.000024 and Rs.44,000/- on 10.07.2019 vide DD No.255296 respectively. The complainant sent the payment to Vikas Yadav, the agent of Bharti Life Insurance Company, SCO No.82-83, Mugal Canal, Karnal through courier. The OP instead of installing a tower send 6 insurance policies including in the name of the complainant and insured the son of the complainant namely Balwinder Singh and adjusted amount of Rs.34,200/-. The policy commenced w.e.f. 26.12.2018 to 25.12.2020. The policy was issued by the OP from its registered office Unit No.1904, 19^th Floor Parinee East Mumbai. An amount of Rs.34,200/- has been paid by the complainant through cheque and the policy in question has been illegally issued by the OP. After the receipt of policy, the complainant made a telephone call to said person on their telephone number, the call was attended by Vikas Yadav and Satish Mishra. But they have not given any proper response to the complainant nor they installed tower as per their assurance rather policy has been sold by misstating the facts fraudulently. The complainant’s whole life savings having been looted by the OP through their representative by making false representation and induced the complainant to make the payment stated above, the OP indulged into unfair trade practice. Thus, alleging deficiency in service, the complainant sought the following relief against the OP:-

1. To refund a sum of Rs.34,199.76/- along with interest @ 18% per annum w.e.f. 26.12.2018 till its payment 
2. To pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation 
3. To pay Rs.25,000/- as litigation expenses.

2.       In reply, the OP has filed written reply taking preliminary objections; that the complaint is not maintainable against the answering OP; that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP; that the matter in question in the present complaint involves complicated questions of facts and law as well as voluminous evidence, which can only be dealt with by a Civil Court; that this commission has no jurisdiction to entertain the present complaint; that the complainant has raised some very serious allegations against the answering OP without substantiating with any documentary proof. On merits, it is stated that the policy holder had not approached the answering OP during the free look period with any grievance regarding the policy or its terms and conditions. Meaning thereby that, the policy holder agreed to the policy and its terms and conditions.  Thus, alleging no deficiency in service on the part of OP and prayed for dismissal the present complaint.

3.       The learned counsel for the parties have tendered certain documents in support of their version and closed the evidence.

4.       We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record file, carefully and minutely.

5.                 From the perusal of the documents placed on record by both the parties, we feel, that as per Ex.C9, the complainant deposited Rs.34,200/- in the account of OP No.1. When the complainant refund the amount deposited by him then the OP refused to refund the same. 

7.       After appreciating totality of the documents, the complaint stands allowed with the directions to the OP1 to refund Rs.34,199.76/ along with interest @ 7% per annum from the date of filing of the complaint along with compensation amount of Rs.20,000/- with litigation expenses to the tune of Rs.7000/-. The OP is further directed to comply with the order within 30 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. Free certified copies of this order be sent to the parties, as per rules. The files be consigned to record room.

ANNOUNCED                                                                                   (RANJIT SINGH)

          Dated.03.10.2022                                                                       PRESIDENT
 

                                                                               (RANVIR KAUR)

                                                                                                            MEMBER