2. In this case the opposite party No.1 had engaged the service of an advocate and the opposite party Nos. 2 to 4 had engaged the service of another advocate and both filed different versions.
2(a). In brief the version of opposite party No.1 are:-
The complainant is not a consumer. There is no deficiency in service. The complaint is barred by time. The complainant is misusing and abusing the process of law. The allegation that the then branch manager of the first opposite party misguided the complainant is false and asked the complainant to sign blank papers is also false. The complainant approached the first opposite party for investing her money in the insurance policy. Accordingly she met ICICI Prudential desk which is an independent entity. The first opposite party is not connected with opposite party Nos. 2 to 4. The opposite party is not at all involved in the transaction. There is no privity of the contract between the complainant and the first opposite party and the other opposite parties. The policy is issued by the second opposite party and the amount has been deposited with the second opposite party. No term deposit investment is made. All the allegations to the contrary are denied.
2(b). In this case the alleged version filed by the opposite party Nos. 2 to 4 is not executed by any of the opposite parties No. 2 to 4 nor signed by the opposite party Nos. 2 to 4. The version is signed by advocate for the opposite party Nos. 2 to 4 and not by the opposite parties. The verification is made by one Shivakumar on behalf of opposite party Nos. 1 to 3 as seen from the verification. How he could verify the version signed by the advocate. Without the version being executed or made by the opposite party Nos. 2 to 4 how can some other person verify, it that is no verification at all. Any pleading has to be signed by the parties concerned. If it is not made it has no pleading at all in the eye of law. As such the version is not summarized.
3. To substantiate their respective cases the complainant had filed “point to point Reply” and stated that it may be read as his affidavit along with the documents. The other opposite parties have filed the affidavits. The arguments were heard.
4. The points that arise for our consideration are:-
- Whether there is unfair trade practice committed by the opposite parties?
- Whether the complaint is barred by time?
- What order?
5. Our findings on the above points are:-
Point (A) : In the Positive
Point (B): In the Negative
Point (C) : As per the final order
For the following:-
REASONS
POINT (A) to (C):-
6. The complaint and the version of the opposite party No.1 is summarized supra, the same be read here in again. The version of the opposite party Nos. 2 to 4 is no version at all for the reasons stated supra. The version has to be signed by the parties concerned. In this case the version of the opposite party Nos. 2 to 4 is signed only by the advocate for the opposite parties and not by the opposite parties. Without the parties signing the version, some person Shivakumar is verifying it is of no consequences. Without version any amount of affidavit of Shivakumar is of no consequences. That means none of the allegations made by the complainant is challenged or denied by the opposite party Nos. 2 to 4.
7. The complainant has clearly stated and sworn to thus:-
In the first week of December 2007, I approached Sri Shantanu Banerjee, the then Agent-cum-Branch manager of ICICI Bank, Indiranagar, Bangalore for depositing Rs.4,00,000/- (that was my only hard-earned savings that time) in a Fixed Deposit account for One year, insisting that I should be able to withdraw the full money in case of need at short notice. In the course of discussion, he persuaded me to take an Insurance Policy with attractive returns giving me false assurance that the money would be kept with the Company only for a year and I was free to withdraw the money anytime I needed. As a laywoman who is oblivious of the operation of the scheme, to my bad luck, I trusted him and took him into confidence and I was made to sign a set of blank papers. He asked for all my personal details and the application form was filled in by the Bank Manager later after I left the Bank. Before my leaving his office, he specifically asked me to collect the receipt from the counter later on. The contents of the form or the details of the scheme were not explained to me. I trusted the Branch manager believing that the Branch Manager was acting to my ultimate benefit.
Toward the end of December 2007, my ailing father was in death-bed and I had to proceed to Agra (UP) during which period, (when I was not in Bangalore) the policy was delivered at my residence. My father died on 01.01.2008 and as I came back, I did not notice that the policy was delivered at home in my absence and I resumed duty and became busy with my work.
In May 2008, my only son met with a serious car accident and got admitted in a hospital. I needed immediate money to meet the expenses and approached ICICI Bank, Indiranagar with the Policy that was kept at home by my son. Then only, to my horror, I was told that I had been deceived by Shri Shantanu Banerjee who had already left the Bank ditching many persons like me. I was reminded of the free-look-period and the grave betrayal of trapping me (a salaried employee of Rs.2,40,000/- per annum at the time) for a Policy of Rs.4,00,000/- (Rs. Four Lakh) with Annual Payment option.
This has not been challenged either by the first opposite party or by the opposite party Nos. 2 to 4. There is nothing to disbelieve the same. The opposite party No.1 has simply stated that Sri. Shantanu Banerjee has not misguided the complainant. That Shantanu Banerjee of the opposite parties have not filed any affidavit nor that Shantanu Banerjee has come before this Forum and stated anything per contra. That means the complainant approached the first opposite party for keeping her Rs.4,00,000/- in fixed deposit for one year, so that she can take back the money at any time. But Sri. Shantanu Banerjee took her signature regarding the insurance policy of the other opposite parties and asked her to collect the receipt from the counter. Accordingly she collected the receipt for having paid Rs.4,00,000/- from the counter of the opposite party No.1 and went away and after her father died she returned to Bangalore in 2008 May and when her son met with an accident for the sake of her need she approached opposite party No.1 then she came to know about the unfair trade practice committed by the opposite parties. She was not aware of the free-look-period. She was earning only Rs.2,40,000/- per year in that she has to maintain her family she has no other income. Hence she getting policy for a premium of Rs.4,00,000/- per year can never be drempt of by any prudent man. That means the Shantanu Banerjee in the guise of keeping the money of the complainant so that she can withdraw at any time took the money from the complainant and invested it in the policy taking her signature. This is an unfair trade practice committed by the opposite parties. If it were to be false the opposite parties would have filed the affidavit of Mr. Shantanu Banerjee that has not been done. Hence an adverse inference has to be drawn against opposite party.
8. When she came to know about this unfair trade practice she approached the opposite parties then the opposite parties pleaded for free-look-period of the policy. When the complainant was not knowing about anything about the policy and she wanted only an investment and return she was made to dodge between opposite parties interse and Mr. Ramit,Mr. Nadeem Sheikh, Mr. Raghavendra, Mr.Nilesh of the opposite party had assured her of the policy being converted into a one time policy as she is unable to pay the premium as per the alleged policy. If this were to be false these persons would have filed the affidavits and these persons would have signed or verified the version, but none of these persons have filed any affidavit nor signed the version. Hence an adverse inference has to be drawn against the opposite parties.
9. Anyway the complainant never sought any foreclosure of the policy, she wanted the policy to be converted in to one time payment of Rs.4,00,000/- policy or return of her money invested by her. Considering that the opposite parties have paid only Rs.89,989.59 on 11.12.2010 denying her claim for full amount. Hence limitation to the complaint has started only on 11.12.2010 hence the complaint filed on 02.06.2011 is well within time and it is not barred by time. In view of the above, decisions citied by the learned counsel for the opposite party No.2 in a case between State Bank Of India –V/s- M/s. B.S. Agricultural Industries (I) on 20.03.2009 by the Apex court and Haryana Urban Development –V/s- B.K. Sood on 26.10.2005 by the Apex Court is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of this case, though there is no dispute about the proposition of law laid down therein; discussing and distinguishing these two judgments of the higher courts only bulk and bulge the records and such quoting are also prohibited under Regulation 18(5) of the Consumer Protection Regulation 2005.
10. In the guise investment the opposite parties collected Rs.4,00,000/- from her demanded her to pay Rs.4,00,000/- every year towards yearly premium which she was not aware of it nor she was made known. She is a salaried class employee getting an income of Rs.2,40,000/- per annum without having any other income. Then how can she pay Rs.4,00,000/- per annum as premium. This itself clearly establishes the unfair trade practice committed by the opposite parties.
11. The contention that the opposite party No.1 has nothing to do with the policy is nothing but an untenable contention. The complainant had gone to the first opposite party and where she paid Rs.4,00,000/- to Mr. Shantanu Banerjee where none explained the terms of the policy to the complainant, but her signature were taken on the blank papers and later filled by Mr. Shantanu Banerjee. Hence it is an unfair trade practice committed by the opposite parties. They cannot take any help from the policy in this case.
12. In view of the above the opposite parties are bound to return to the complainant, the balance amount that is Rs.3,10,010.49 paise this has to be paid the opposite parties. Hence we hold the above points accordingly and proceed to pass the following:-
ORDER
1. The complaint is Allowed-in-part.
2. The opposite parties are directed to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.3,10,010.49 paise within 30 days from the date of this order. Failing which they shall pay the said amount with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from 01.01.2008 until payment within 60 days from the date of this order.
3. The opposite parties are also directed to pay Rs.2,000/- to the complainant towards cost of this litigation.
4. The opposite parties are directed to send the amounts as ordered at Serial Nos.2 & 3 above through DD by registered post acknowledgment due to the complainant and submit the compliance report to this Forum with necessary documents within 45 days.
5. Return the extra sets filed by the parties to the concerned as under Regulation 20(3) of the Consumer’s Protection Regulation 2005.
6. Send a copy of this order to both parties free of costs, immediately.
(Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed and typed by him, corrected and then pronounced by us in the Open Forum on this the 28th Day of July 2011)
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
