C.F. CASE No. : CC/2013/86
COMPLAINANT : Smt. Jyotsna Das,
W/o Kalachand Das,
Vill. + P.O. Debagram (Station para)
Dist. Nadia, PIN - 741137
OPPOSITE PARTIES/OPs : 1) Branch Manager,
Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Co. Ltd.
16/6 D.L. Roy Road, (2nd Floor),
Gugnitalamore, Krishnagar, Dist. Nadia
2) Divisional Manager,
Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Co. Ltd.
Berhampore Divisional Office,
37/A R.N. Tagore Road,
Berhampore, Murshidabad, PIN – 742101
3) Regional & Head Office
Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Co. Ltd.
G.E. Plaza, Airport Rd.
Yaradura, Pune – 411006
PRESENT : SHRI PRADIP KUMAR BANDYOPADHYAY, PRESIDENT
: SMT REETA ROYCHAUDHURY MALAKAR, MEMBER
: SHRI SHYAMAL KUMAR GHOSH, MEMBER
DATE OF DELIVERY
OF JUDGMENT : 12th August, 2014
: J U D G M E N T :
The petitioner, Smt. Jyotsna Das has filed the instant case under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the Branch Manager, Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Co. Ltd. herein OP No. 1, and Divisional Manager, Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd. Berhampore Branch herein OP No. 2 and OP No. 3, Regional & Head Office, Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Co. Ltd.
Case of the petitioner, in brief:-
The petitioner, Jyotsna Das purchased a policy from Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Co. Ltd. on 22.05.2009 (bearing policy No. 0052065456). The petitioner surrendered the said policy at Krishnagar Branch Office on 08.10.12 in need of money. The Branch in turn informed the petitioner that they would disburse the amount within 25 days but more than 10 months had elapsed but the cheque did not reach the petitioner’s residence. Then she sent three reminder letters to the Divisional Office, Berhampore on 31.01.2013, 16.05.2013 & 18.07.2013 and Berhampore Branch herein OP No. 2 carried an investigation and informed the petitioner that the said cheque had already been encashed by her through State Bank of India, Nabadwip Branch. The petitioner was astonished as she never received the cheque before the encashment of the same and the encashment of the same does not arise at all. Finding no other alternative the petitioner has filed the instant case with the following prayers.
- Direction upon the OPs to refund Rs. 60,000/- which is the twice of policy value.
- Direction upon the OPs to pay a compensation of Rs. 10,000/- for mental agony and harassment.
- Direction upon the OPs to pay 10,000/- as litigation cost.
The OPs contested the case by filing written version challenging the contentions of the complaint. The OPs submitted that the complainant does not have any locus standi to file the instant application, since she has already taken the benefit of the Insurance Policy and has made such allegations and statements which are contrary to the terms and conditions of the policy. On receiving the request from the complainant the OPs prepared a cheque (AXIS Bank dtd. 11.10.2012 bearing No. 131863) for an amount of Rs. 24,651/- and the same was sent to the petitioner that the local branch of the opposite party on 26.10.2012 to the address supplied by the complainant while applying for the policy. The cheque was sent through Registered Post through A/D bearing No. ‘RW 336235068IN’ and the Post Office also insured the delivery status to the OP as ‘delivered’ on 18.06.2013. On further investigation it also came to the knowledge of the OPs that the petitioner encashed the cheque on 10.11.2012 in A/c No. 596162. Hence the OPs pray for dismissal of the instant case by exercising the power conferred under Section 26 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 with exemplary cost.
The petitioner and the OPs filed the relevant documents in support of argument by way of firisti.
From the pleadings, written version and written argument as well as documents filed by the parties we frame the following issues.
Point No. 1) Is the petitioner a Consumer under the OPs?
Point No. 2) Are the OPs suffer from deficiency in service?
Point No. 3) Is the petitioner entitled to get the reliefs from the OPs?
REASOND DECISIONS
For the purpose of brevity and convenience all the points are taken up together for discussion.
From the pleadings of the parties and documents on record we are convinced that the petitioner is a consumer under the OPs.
Now the question is whether there was deficiency in service in sending the cheque of Rs. 24,651/- (annexure -4) in favour of the complainant. We find from the original application from the Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Co. Ltd. that the proposal form was signed by Jyotsna Das and the nominee was Priyanka Das, the daughter of the complainant. Jyotsna Das signed on the surrender / partial withdrawal form from the reverse side of the cheque (annexure -4). We find that the cheque was encashed in State Bank of India, A/c No. 596162 of the State Bank of India, Nabadwip Branch. There is signature of Jyotsna Das on the reverse side of the cheque which tallies with the signature of the original signature of Jyotsna Das. Thus, the question of deficiency in service does not hold much water. Hence, the claim of delivery of cheque in the name of another Jyotsna Das could not be established.
Hence, the petitioner is not entitled to get any relief as prayed for.
Ordered,
That, the case CC/2013/86 be and the same is dismissed on contest. No cost.
Let a copy of this judgment be delivered to the parties free of cost.
