Order No.  25  dt.  22/08/2017

       The case of the complainant in brief is that the complainant was approached by the representative of o.ps. with an assurance that if the complainant purchased a bond of Rs.10,000/- he will be entitled to get a loan of Rs.1 lakh. The complainant in order to purchase immovable property worth of Rs.7 lakhs consulted the senior officers of o.ps. who asked him to deposit demand draft of rs.70,000/- for purchase of insurance bond. The complainant accordingly paid the said amount by two demand drafts of Rs.40,000/- and Rs.30,000/- respectively and paid processing charges of Rs.798/-. After payment of the said amount o.ps. did not make any contact with the complainant and no reply was given to the queries made by the complainant. On the basis of the said fact the complainant prayed for direction upon the o.ps. for refund of Rs.70,000/- as well as compensation of Rs.7 lakhs and litigation cost of Rs.20,000/-.

            The o.ps. contested this case by filing w/v and denied all the material allegations of the complaint. It was stated that the complainant did not ask for refund of the money within the free look period though the policy was sent at the address of the complainant. Subsequently o.ps. agreed to refund the amount but the complainant did not cooperate for which the case is pending for so many years. The policy was not delivered upon the complainant due to incorrect address provided by the complainant. The o.ps. being a customer friendly organization went through the case and decided to cancel the said policy stood in the name of Sourav Dam and a cheque was sent which was after deducting the stamp charges, however, the same has been returned undelivered. The o.ps. are eager for settlement of the payment of Rs.70,000/- which has been received from the complainant. On the basis of the said fact o.ps. prayed for passing necessary order.

            On the basis of the pleadings of parties the following points are to be decided:

1. Whether the complainant paid two demand drafts amount to Rs.70,000/-?
2. Whether the loan as assured by o.ps. were sanctioned in favour of the complainant?
3. Whether there was any deficiency in service on the part of o.ps.?
4. Whether the complainant will be entitled to get the relief as prayed for?

Decision with reasons:

            All the points are taken up together for the sake of brevity and avoidance of repetition of facts.

            Ld. lawyer for the complainant argued that the complainant being approached by the representative of o.ps. that if he invests an amount of Rs.70,000/- by purchasing bond he will be entitled to get loan of rs.7 lakhs, on the basis of the said assurance the complainant paid an amount of Rs.70,000/- by way of two demand drafts, but no loan was sanctioned. After receiving the said amount o.ps. did not make any contact with the complainant. On the basis of the said fact the complainant filed this case praying for direction upon the o.ps. for refund of the amount of Rs.70,000/- along with other reliefs.

            Ld. lawyer for the o.ps. argued that the complainant provided the address and o.ps. sent the policy at the address of the complainant, but the same was returned undelivered. Since the complainant provided the wrong address the policy could not be delivered. On the basis of the said fact o.ps. argued that the complainant ought to have filed an application within the free look period, but the same was not done on behalf of the complainant. On the basis of the said fact o.ps. prayed for dismissal of the case.

            Considering the submissions of the respective parties it is an admitted fact that the complainant paid an amount of Rs.70,000/- by way of two demand drafts in favour of the o.ps. The o.ps. after receiving the said amount did not make any contact with the complainant. The complainant invested the said amount with o.ps. with the assurance that he will be provided a loan of Rs.7 lakhs. It appears from the record that o.ps. did not sanction any loan to the complainant and moreover, the policy was not served upon the complainant. It also appears from the materials on record that o.ps. agreed to refund the amount of Rs.70,000/- to the complainant after the filing of this case which was not accepted by the complainant. On the basis of the said fact since there was some deficiency in service on the part of o.ps. and the complainant was not served with the bond in question, as such, the complainant did not get the opportunity praying for cancellation of the bond. In view of such evidence on record we hold that there was deficiency in service on the part of o.ps. and the complainant will be entitled to get the relief as prayed for. Thus all the points are disposed of accordingly.

            Hence, ordered,

            That the CC No.304/2013 is allowed on contest with cost against the o.ps. The o.ps. are jointly and/or severally directed to refund a sum of Rs.70,000/- (Rupees seventy thousand) only to the complainant along with compensation of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand) only for harassment and mental agony and litigation cost of Rs.5000/- (Rupees five thousand) only within 30 days from the date of communication of this order, i.d. an interest @ 10% p.a. shall accrue over the entire sum due to the credit of the complainant till full realization.           

            Supply certified copy of this order to the parties free of cost.