THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AMRITSAR
Consumer Complaint No. 499 of 2014
Date of Institution : 10.9.2014
Date of Decision : 09.09.2015
S. Arminder Singh Randhawa, aged 24 years son of S. Karamjit Singh Radhawa, resident of H.No.38, Gali No.7, Ranjit Vihar, Loharka Road,Amritsar
...Complainant
Vs.
Central Bank of India, Gumtala Branch,Airport Road, Amritsar
The Branch Manaer, LIC of India, Jeevan Parkash Building, 45, District Shopping Complex, Ranjit Avenue,Amritsar
....Opp.parties
Complaint under section 12/13 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986
Present : For the complainant : Ms. Anu Gupta,Advocate
For the opposite party No. 1 : Sh.P.S. Teji,Advocate
For opposite party No.2 : Sh. M.S.Bhatia,Advocate
Quorum : Sh. Bhupinder Singh, President ,Ms. Kulwant Bajwa,Member &
Sh.Anoop Sharma,Member
Order dictated by :-
Bhupinder Singh, President
-2-
1 Present complaint has been filed by Arminder Singh Randhawa under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act alleging therein that he opened saving bank account No. 3311026470 with opposite party No.1 bank on 28.12.2013 with cash amount of Rs. 1000/- . On the same day the complainant deposited another amount of Rs. 9,45,000/- in the said account. As such the credit amount became Rs. 9,46,000/- as per copy of pass book. Complainant has alleged that after a few months, he visited opposite party No.1 bank branch and got completed his pass book in which he found the entry dated 30.12.2013 regarding some transfer in the loan of Rs. 3,78,000/-. The complainant enquired from the opposite party regarding this entry and they told that LIC Policy was purchased in the name of the complainant from opposite party No.2, whereas the complainant never purchased any LIC policy bond from opposite party No.2 nor he had signed any such documents regarding purchase of the policy/bond in his name. Opposite party No.1 bank had made false transaction in the said saving account of the complainant and got issued LIC policy in the name of the complainant without the consent of the complainant. The complainant sent letter dated 22.4.2014 to the Chairman of LIC of India with copy of Zonal Manager and Regional Manager and he came to know that the company had issued policy in his name bearing No. 473875162. Complainant has alleged that opposite party No.1 by fraudulently deducting the premium of the policy out of the aforesaid saving bank account of the complainant. He requested the LIC authorities to cancel the policy and to refund the premium amount. However, the LIC authorities told to the complainant that proposal form and other enclosure bears the signatures of the complainant as such they refused to cancel the said policy. The complainant submitted that opposite parties in connivance with each other have taken the signatures of the complainant on aforesaid documents/papers and issued the policy to the complainant. The complainant further alleged that opposite party No.1 bank officials had taken Rs. 35000/- from the complainant to deposit the same in his account without consulting the complainant. The complainant also learnt that against the aforesaid policy, opposite party No.1 had taken a loan from opposite party No.2 and made adjustment in the saving bank account of the complainant. As such false and bogus entries of debit and credit have been made by opposite party No.1 in the saving bank account of the complainant. The complainant further alleged that his account is not properly maintained by opposite party No.1. The complainant further alleged that both the opposite parties in connivance with each other for some financial gains to themselves and for wrongful loss to the complainant have cheated the complainant by deducting the premium amount of Rs. 2 lacs out of the saving account of the complainant thereby opposite party No.1 had made false fabricated entries in the pass book of the complainant . Alleging the same to be deficiency in service complaint was filed seeking directions to the opposite parties to cancel the policy in question and to refund the amount of Rs. 2 lacs with interest @ 18% p.a. Compensation of Rs. 50000/- alongwith litigation expenses were also demanded.
2. On notice, opposite party No.1 appeared and filed written version in which it was submitted that earlier a similar complaint No. 324 of 2014 was filed by the complainant against the opposite parties through his counsel Ms. Geetanjali Sharma,Advocate and the same was dismissed as withdrawn on 29.8.2014 and the complainant intentionally concealed this fact. It was denied that the branch manager of opposite party No.1 obtained the signatures of the complainant on various forms, vouchers and other papers. It was submitted that complainant had availed loan facility from opposite party No.1 bank on 30.12.2013 to the tune of Rs. 3,78,000/- and executed relevant loaning documents. The said loan account was subsequently adjusted and the loan account became Nil. The complainant got prepared a demand draft No. 030832 of Rs. 6,01,492/- from the aforesaid saving account by executing relevant voucher. The complainant had purchased the policy in question from opposite party No.2 by issuing aforesaid demand draft of Rs. 6,01,492/- in favour of opposite party No.2 . Opposite party No.1 has no knowledge as to whether complainant signed the policy documents of opposite party No.2 or not . Opposite party No.1 has no part to play in the issuance of Insurance policy by opposite party No.2 in the name of the complainant. Opposite party No.1 only transferred an amount of Rs. 3,78,000/- in the account of opposite party No.2 on the instructions of the complainant. It was submitted that the complainant himself has approached opposite party No.2 to obtain the policy. There is no connivance with opposite party No.1 with opposite party No.2 in the issuance of the policy in question in the name of the complainant. Opposite party No.1 denied that complainant ever paid Rs. 35000/- to opposite party No.1 or that they did not deposit the same in his account. No such amount was ever received by opposite party No.1 from the complainant. It was further submitted that whatever transactions have been depicted in the account statement of the complainant as well as in the pass book of the complainant , have been made on the instructions of the complainant. Opposite party No.1 has not caused any loss to the complainant in connivance with opposite party No.2. While denying and controverting other allegations, dismissal of complaint was prayed.
3. Opposite party No.2 in its written version has submitted that complainant had taken a life insurance policy No. 473875162 in his name and submitted the proposal papers duly signed by him and furnished the requisite documents on 30.12.2013. The proposal was accepted by the LIC and aforesaid policy bond was issued and the same was received by Sh.Bikram Singh Kohli FSE for handing over the same to the complainant which was duly handed over to him. A letter dated 22.4.2014 was received from the complainant for cancellation of the policy and refund of the premium amount and the same was re[plied by the opposite party vide letter dated 7.5.2014 mentioning therein that after purchase of policy, the complainant had taken loan from LIC office on the strength of policy bond and other papers which shows that he was fully aware of the purchase of the policy, as such the policy cannot be cancelled. The complainant also got corrected in his name on the policy bond which also shows that he was aware of the LIC policy in question and in this context a letter was again issued by the complainant dated 13.5.2014 to the replying opposite party. The allegations of connivance with opposite party No.1, malafide, false transactions, fraud and mis-selling the policy are wrong. While denying and controverting other allegations, dismissal of complaint was prayed.
4. Complainant tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex.C-1, letter of Chairman, Central Bank of India Ex.C-2, letter of Manager LIC of India dated 13.5.2014 Ex.C-3, letter dated 22.4.2014 Ex.C-4, receipt dated 23.4.2014 Ex.C-5, receipt dted 1.5.2014 Ex.C-6, receipt dated 22.4.2014 Ex.C-7, pass book of Central Bank of India Ex.C-8.
5. Opposite party No.1 tendered affidavit of Sh. Rajender Singh Silyan, Branch Manager Ex.OP1/1, copy of debit voucher Ex.OP1/2, copy of credit voucher Ex.OP1/3, copy of letter of waiver Ex.OP1/4.
6. Opposite party No.2 tendered affidavit of Sh.Yogender Singh Sisodia, Manager Ex.OP2/1 alongwith documents Ex.OP2/2 to Ex.OP2/14.
7. We have carefully gone through the pleadings of the parties, arguments advanced by the ld.counsel for all the parties and have appreciated the evidence produced on record by all the parties with the valuable assistance of the ld.counsel for the parties.
8. From the record i.e. pleadings of the parties and the evidence produced on record by both the parties , it is clear that complainant opened saving bank account No. 3311026470 with opposite party No.1 bank on 28.12.2013 with cash amount of Rs. 1000/- . On the same day the complainant deposited another amount of Rs. 9,45,000/- in the said account. As such the credit amount became Rs. 9,46,000/- as per copy of pass book Ex.C-8. The complainant submitted that after a few months, the complainant visited opposite party No.1 bank branch and got completed his pass book in which he found the entry dated 30.12.2013 regarding some transfer in the loan of Rs. 3,78,000/-. The complainant enquired from the opposite party regarding this entry and they told that LIC Policy was purchased in the name of the complainant from opposite party No.2 . The complainant submitted that he never purchased any LIC policy bond from opposite party No.2 nor he had signed any such documents regarding purchase of the policy/bond in his name. Opposite party No.1 bank had made false transaction in the said saving account of the complainant and got issued LIC policy in the name of the complainant without the consent of the complainant. The complainant sent letter dated 22.4.2010 Ex.C-2 to the Chairman LIC as well as letter dated 22.4.2014 to the Chairman of Central Bank of India with copy of Zonal Manager and Regional Manager. He also issued letter dated 13.5.2014 Ex.C-3 to the manager LIC in this regard that he never applied for LIC policy. The branch manager of LIC in connivance with opposite party No.1 by fraudulently deducting the premium of the policy out of the aforesaid saving bank account of the complainant. He requested the LIC authorities to cancel the policy and to refund the premium amount. However, the LIC authorities told to the complainant that proposal form and other enclosure bears the signatures of the complainant, as such they refused to cancel the said policy. The complainant submitted that opposite parties in connivance with each other have taken the signatures of the complainant on aforesaid documents/papers and issued the policy to the complainant. The complainant further alleged that opposite party No.1 bank officials had taken Rs. 35000/- from the complainant to deposit the same in his account , rather they purchased the LIC policy in the name of the complainant without consulting the complainant. The complainant also learnt that against the aforesaid policy, opposite party No.1 had taken a loan from opposite party No.2 and made adjustment in the saving bank account of the complainant. As such false and bogus entries of debit and credit have been made by opposite party No.1 in the saving bank account of the complainant. The complainant further alleged that his amount is not properly maintained by opposite party No.1. The complainant further alleged that both the opposite parties in connivance with each other has caused wrongful gain to themselves and wrongful loss to the complainant whereby they have cheated the complainant by deducting the premium amount of Rs. 2 lacs out of the saving account of the complainant thereby opposite party No.1 had made false fabricated entries in the pass book of the complainant with malafide intention and all the fake transactions were made by the opposite parties in connivance with each other . Ld.counsel for the complainant submitted that all this amounts to deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties qua the complainant.
9. Whereas the case of opposite party No.1 is that earlier a similar complaint No. 324 of 2014 was filed by the complainant against the opposite parties through his counsel Ms. Geetanjali Sharma,Advocate and the same was dismissed as withdrawn on 29.8.2014 and the complainant intentionally concealed this fact. Opposite party No.1 submitted that the complainant had availed loan facility from opposite party No.1 bank on 30.12.2013 to the tune of Rs. 3,78,000/- and executed relevant loaning documents. The said loan account was subsequently adjusted and the loan account became Nil. The complainant got prepared a demand draft No. 030832 of Rs. 6,01,492/- from the aforesaid saving account by executing relevant voucher. The complainant had purchased the policy in question from opposite party No.2 by issuing aforesaid demand draft of Rs. 6,01,492/- in favour of opposite party No.2 . Opposite party No.1 has no knowledge as to whether complainant signed the policy documents of opposite party No.2 or not . Opposite party No.1 has no part to play in the issuance of Insurance policy by opposite party No.2 in the name of the complainant. Opposite party No.1 only transferred an amount of Rs. 3,78,000/- in the account of opposite party No.1 on the instructions of the complainant. The complainant himself has approached opposite party No.2 to obtain the policy. There is no connivance with opposite party No.1 with opposite party No.2 in the issuance of the policy in question in the name of the complainant. Opposite party No.1 denied that complainant ever paid Rs. 35000/- to opposite party No.1 or that they did not deposit the same in his account. No such amount was ever received by opposite party No.1 from the complainant. All the transactions have been duly depicted in the account statement of the complainant as well as in the pass book of the complainant correctly. Opposite party No.1 has not played any role in getting the insurance policy by the complainant from opposite party No.2. Ld . Counsel for opposite party No.1 submitted that there is no deficiency of service on the part of opposite party No.1 qua the complainant.
10. Whereas case of opposite party No.2 is that complainant himself filled in and signed the proposal form Ex.OP2/2 and obtained the policy. On the basis of application form, LIC policy No. 473875162 was issued in the name of the complainant and the policy bond was duly received by Bikram Singh Kohli, FSE for handing over the same to the complainant which was duly handed over to the complainant. Opposite party No.2 received letter dated 22.4.2014 from the complainant for cancellation of the policy and refund of the premium amount. The said letter was suitably replied by opposite party No.2 vide letter dated 7.5.2014 Ex.OP2/1 in which it was mentioned that after purchase of policy the complainant had taken loan from the LIC office on the strength of policy bond and other papers which shows that he was fully aware of the purchase of the LIC policy, as such his policy cannot be cancelled . Not only this the policy holder had effected a correction in his name on the bond which proves that he was aware of the LIC policy in question. Opposite party No.2 submitted that allegation of connivance with opposite party No.1, malafide, false transaction, fraund and mis-selling the policy are totally wrong and they denied the same. Opposite party No.2 submitted that the complainant has filled in and signed the proposal form Ex.OP2/2 on the basis of which policy bond was issued to the complainant. The complainant raised a loan against his policy. Not only this he also got corrected his name on the policy bond, so he was well aware of the policy and its terms and conditions. So the opposite party No.2 did not accede to the request of the complainant for cancellation of the policy and refund of the premium amount. Ld. Counsel for opposite party No.2 submitted that the complainant has alleged that the authorities of opposite parties No.1 & 2 have got the signatures of the complainant on various blank papers/printed forms. They had cheated the complainant. Opposite party No.1 received Rs. 35000/- from the complainant but did not deposit the same in his account rather opposite party No.1 in connivance with each other issued insurance policy of opposite party No.2 in the name of the complainant. He also submitted that he has not taken loan from opposite party No.2 against that policy. So opposite parties in connivance with each other have committed fraud, misrepresentation, cheating, as such it is a very complicated case which requires lot of evidence. As such these matters cannot be decided by this fora as a summary case,therefore, the complainant should approach the Civil court in this regard. Ld.counsel for opposite party No.2 submitted that opposite party No.2 has not committed any deficiency of service qua the complainant.
11. From the entire above discussion, we have come to the conclusion that complainant opened saving bank account No. 3311026470 with opposite party No.1 bank on 28.12.2013 with cash amount of Rs. 1000/- . On the same day the complainant deposited another amount of Rs. 9,45,000/- in the said account ; thereby the credit amount became Rs. 9,46,000/- as per pass book of the complainant Ex.C-8. Thereafter complainant in order to obtain policy from LIC filled in and signed the proposal form Ex.OP2/2 and also pasted his photographs and other ID proofs. Not only this complainant has also filled in and signed declaration form that he has understood all the contents of the proposal form and he signed the same in token of its correctness. On the basis of which opposite party No.2 issued insurance policy to the complainant Ex.OP2/5 which is a single premium policy of premium Rs. 6,01,492/- with sum assured Rs. 9,10,000/- . The date of proposal is 30.12.2013. The policy was to mature on 28.12.2022. Not only this complainant got corrected his name in the policy bond. He also submitted application for loan with opposite party No.2 and he got a loan of Rs. 3,78,000/- as is evident from the application and receipt of loan Ex.OP2/11 which is duly signed by the complainant and the complainant also signed on the revenue stamp in token of the receipt of the loan and this loan was duly depicted in the account of the complainant, the pass book of which has been produced by the complainant himself Ex.C-8. Said loan was subsequently adjusted in the loan account of the complainant with opposite party No.1 bank as is evident from the statement of account in the form of pass book of the complainant Ex.C-8. The complainant could not produce any evidence to prove his allegations that the opposite party got his signatures on blank papers/printed forms. The complainant has supplied his photographs, ID proofs and other documents to obtain the policy from the opposite party. He has also filled in and signed the proposal form Ex.OP2/2. He has also received the policy bond that is why he got corrected his name in the policy bond which fully proves that complainant had received the policy bond on the basis of proposal form. The complainant is well literate person, as such it cannot be said that he signed at various places on the proposal form, loan application form without knowledge. Not only this he has also signed on the revenue stamp in token of the receipt of the loan from opposite party No.2 which was duly depicted in the pass book of the complainant. All these facts were in the knowledge of the complainant. Opposite party was,therefore, justified in not accepting the request of the complainant for cancellation of the policy.
12. Consequently we hold that complainant has failed to prove on record any deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party.
13. As such the complaint is without merit and the same is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs. Complainant has alleged that opposite parties in connivance with each other got the signatures of the complainant on various blank papers/printed forms , got ID proofs, photographs and cheated the complainant with malafide intention and played fraud with the complainant. However, the complainant did not lead any evidence in this regard . As such the matter regarding fraud, cheating, misrepresentation, etc. being complicated matters,cannot be adjudicated without getting proper evidence and without giving both the parties proper opportunity of leading evidence, in this fora as cases are of summary nature . However, the complainant is at liberty to approach Civil Court , if the complainant is of the opinion that opposite parties have played fraud, cheating, misrepresentation and made false transactions etc. Copies of the order be furnished to the parties free of costs. File is ordered to be consigned to the record room. Complaint could not be disposed of within the stipulated period due to heavy pendency of the cases in this Forum.
9.9.2015 (Bhupinder Singh)
President
(Anoop Sharma) (Kulwant Kaur Bajwa)
/R/ Member Member
