Punjab

StateCommission

A/38/2018

PNB MetLife India Insurance Company Ltd. - Complainant(s)

Versus

Darbara Singh - Opp.Party(s)

Rajesh Gupta

11 May 2018

ORDER

2^Nd ADDITIONAL BENCH

STATE  CONSUMER  DISPUTES  REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PUNJAB, CHANDIGARH.

First Appeal No.38 of 2018

                                                          Date of Institution:  22.01.2018

                                                          Order Reserved on : 25.04.2018

                                                          Date of Decision:      11.05.2018

         

PNB MetLife India Insurance Company Limited, Sutehri Road,         Opposite Maharaja Hotel, Hoshiarpur-146001 (Punjab)

                                                                …Appellant/Opposite Party No.2

Versus

1.      Darbara Singh, s/o Sh. Bhagat Singh r/o        Village Bariar, P.O. Begowal, District Kapurthala (Pujab)

                                                                     Respondent No.1/Complainant

2.      Punjab National bank, Branch Office Miani Khas 0775, Tehsil          Dasuya , District Hoshiarpur , Punjab          

                                                   ………Respondents/Opposite Party No.2

Quorum:-

 

          Shri Gurcharan Singh Saran, Presiding Judicial Member

          Shri Rajinder Kumar Goyal, Member 

 

Present:-

          For appellant                         :         Sh.Rajesh Gupta, Advocate

          For respondent No.1            :         Sh.Rakesh Kumar, Advocate

          For respondent No.2            :         Sh.D.S.Bainola, Advocate

 

2.     

First Appeal No.30 of 2018

 

                                                          Date of Institution: 17.01.2018

                                                          Order Reserved  : 25.04.2018

                                                          Date of Decision :  11.05.2018

 

Punjab National Bank, Branch Office Miani Khas-0775, Tehsil, Dasuya, District Hoshiarpur-Punjab through Senior Manager

                                                             …Appellant/Opposite Party No.1

Versus

1.      Darbara Singh, S/o Sh. Bhagat Singh r/o Village Dariar, P.O.   Begowal, District Kapurthala also residing at 2378 RUE CHOPIN    LAST EF, H8N 2H6 QUEBEC, Canada.

…..Respondent/complainant

2.      PNB MetLife India Insurance Company Limited, Sutehri Road,         Opposite Maharaja Hotel, Hoshiarpur (Punjab) through its     Senior Manager.

                                                    ………Respondents/Opposite Party No.2

 

First Appeal against order dated 07.12.2017 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Hoshiarpur.

 

Quorum:-

 

          Shri Gurcharan Singh Saran, Presiding Judicial Member

          Shri Rajinder Kumar Goyal, Member 

 

Present:-

 

          For appellant                         :         Sh.D.S.Bainola, Advocate

          For respondent No.1            :         Sh.Rakesh Kumar, Advocate

          For respondent No.2            :         Sh.Rajesh Gupta, Advocate

 

 

RAJINDER KUMAR GOYAL, MEMBER

 

ORDER

 

          This order will dispose of both the appeals filed by the appellants/opposite parties against the order dated 07.12.2017 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Hoshiarpur (hereinafter referred to as ‘District Forum’) in Consumer Complaint No.55 of 2017.

                   The appellant/opposite parties No.1&2 (hereinafter referred to as OP No.1&2) have filed the present appeals against the order dated  07.12.2017 passed in Consumer Complaint No.55 of 2017 by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Hoshiarpur (hereinafter referred as ‘District Forum’), vide which the complaint filed by the complainant was partly allowed and opposite parties were directed to refund the amount of Rs.12,00,000/- to  the complainant with interest @12% per annum from 15.01.2015 till realization and further both the opposite parties were directed to pay a compensation of Rs.30,000/- and litigation expenses of Rs.7000/-. The entire compliance be made within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of the order.

2.                Complaint was filed by the respondent/complainant under Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short, "the Act") against the OPs on the averments that he along with his wife-Swaran Kaur had a joint account bearing No.0775000107216925 with OP No.1-Punjab National Bank and similarly, the wife of the complainant was having a joint account with her father Sh. Banta Singh in the same bank having Account No.0775000107193244.In the Month of January 2015, the complainant and his wife came from Canada as they are citizens of Canada and accordingly, they visited the Office of Senior Manager PNB-OP No.1 and made a request for issuing two FDRs for Rs.6,00,000/- each for five years in the name of complainant and his wife and accordingly the Senior Manager of Op No.1 got signatures of the complainant and his wife on certain forms/documents and categorically told to the complainant that when they will come back after five years in India they will get maturity amount of both the FDRs but no receipt or copy of FDRs was given to the complainant or to his wife and thereafter, the complainant and his wife returned back to Canada.

3.                The complainant came to India on 04.04.2017 and thereafter he visited the said Bank to collect the FDRs for a sum of Rs.6,00,000/- each. He was astonished to hear that there was no FDR prepared in his name and in the name of his wife rather the said amount of Rs.6,00,000/- each was invested in insurance policy issued by PNB MetLife India Insurance Company Limited-OP No.2, whereas the complainant and his wife  never asked for issuance of any insurance policy. Both  the parties connived with each other and they invested the amount in PNB MetLife India Insurance Company Limited at the back of the complainant and his wife. OP No.1 with malafide intention fraudulently withdrawn and transferred the amount belonging to the complainant and his wife to OP No.2. No official of the PNB MetLife Insurance Company Limited ever met the complainant or his wife nor they sent any policy or any intimation in this regard. The signatures of the complainant and his wife were obtained on some papers for the purpose of FDRs apparently appear to have been misused by the Ops in connivance with each other. This fact came to light that a sum of Rs.8,00,000/- was withdrawn on 30.01.2015 from the Joint Account of complainant and his wife and a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- was withdrawn from the joint account of Sh. Sawaran Kaur with her father Banta Singh on 15.01.2015. The amount was paid to PNB MetLife India Insurance Company Limited on 04.02.2015 as such the question arises as to where the amount of Rs.12,00,000/- remained for the intervening period. Further OP No.1 in connivance with OP No.2 had  withdrawn/transferred and invested the amount of Rs.3,00,000/- in the name of complainant on 24.06.2015 and Rs.3,00,000/- in the name of his wife on 26.06.2015 without any consent of the complainant and his wife. As such, both the parties in connivance with each other had fraudulently withdrawn funds without the consent of the complainant and his wife from their accounts and instead of preparing FDRs, invested the amount in Insurance Policies. The complainant received a jolt when he was told that as per policy document he will have to pay Rs.6,00,000/- per annum premium of the policy for a period of ten years and the maturity of the policy will be after 40 years i.e. in the year 2055, whereas the complainant Darbara Singh is the age of 62 years and his wife is also an old lady. How a person can pay this amount is not understandable. The complainant went to OP No.1 and made a request to release the aforesaid amounts but the Bank Manager told that the amounts cannot be released due to investments in PNB MetLife India Insurance Policy. Alleging unfair trade practice and deficiency in service the complaint was filed against Ops with the prayer that the opposite parties may kindly be directed to release the amount of Rs.12,00,000/- along with genuine interest thereon from the date 15.01.2015 to onwards, damages of Rs.5,00,000/- for physical and mental harassment, Rs.21,000 (approximately) for extension of air ticket as well as for Rs.59,800/- for loss of his work and cost of litigation etc. which comes to Rs.17,80,000/- (approximately).

4.                Upon notice, both the opposite parties appeared and contested the complaint OP No.1 filed its reply by taking preliminary objections that the present complaint is not maintainable; the complainant and his wife approached the Bank for investment of the amount lying in their accounts and they voluntarily filled the proposal forms and also signed the debit vouchers authorizing the bank to transfer an amount of Rs.12,00,000/- from their accounts and remit the same to PNB MetLife India Insurance Company Limited. On the basis of said debit vouchers the amount was transferred to OP No.2-PNB MetLife India Insurance Company. Due to some technical reasons the policy of Rs.6,00,000/- was not issued by OP No.2 in the name of Swaran Kaur that is why the sum of Rs.6,00,000/- retuned back on 24.06.2015 and credited in the account of complainant. Again on the instructions of the complainant the total amount of Rs.6,00,000/- was transferred to OP No.2 on 24.06.2015 and 26.06.2015 and accordingly two policies bearing No.216, 14730 and 215, 882, 857 for the sum of Rs.3,00,000/- each were issued by OP No.2 in the name of complainant and his wife respectively and another policy No.21490, 854 for the sum of Rs.6,00,000/- in the name of Darbara Singh was also issued. The account of the complainant and his wife had SMS alert facility and they are well aware  about all these transactions through this facility. The other allegations as made in the complaint were categorically denied and finally submitted that the complaint of the complainant is without merit and the same may be dismissed.

5.                OP No.2-PNB MetLife India Insurance Company Limited filed separate reply and averred that the complainant in the present dispute does not come under the definition of “Consumer” because the complainant had invested the said amount for commercial purpose. The complainant voluntarily applied for the policy for the purpose of investment and insurance after fully knowing well about the terms and conditions of the policy. The complainant failed to surrender the policy within free look period of 15 days and after two years he has no right  to ask for return of the amount. OP No.2 received duly filled in proposal form along with amount of premium and after that they issued polices to the complainant and his wife. Other allegations in the complaint were categorically denied and finally prayed that the complaint of the complainant is without merit and the same be dismissed.

6.                In order to prove the case of the complainant, counsel for the complainant tendered into evidence affidavit of attorney of the complainant-Sh.Shivdev Singh Ex.C1 and some documents Mark C2 to Mark C15 and closed the evidence. Similarly, counsel for opposite party No.1 tendered into evidence affidavit of Tarlochan Singh Ex.OP1/1 and documents Ex.OP1/2 and Ex.OP1/3 and closed the evidence and then, counsel for opposite party No.2 tendered into evidence affidavit of Rajeev Sharma Ex.OP2/1 and documents Mark OP2/2 and Mark OP2/3 and closed the evidence.

7.                After going through the allegations as alleged in the complaint, and evidence and documents brought on record the complaint filed by the complainant was allowed as referred above.

8.                Aggrieved with the order passed by the learned District Forum the appellant/complainant has filed the present appeal.

9.                We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant/complainant.

First Appeal Nos.30 and 38 of 2018

10.              Since the common evidence, common arguments and similar legal proposition is involved, therefore both the appeals are taken up together for discussion.

11.              In Appeal No.38 of 2018 filed by Op No.2, it has been contended that the District Forum has gone beyond the terms and conditions of the policy. In Appeal No.30 of 2018 filed by the appellant/OP No.1 it has been stated that the funds were withdrawn from  the accounts of the complainant and his wife as per their instructions and the same were transferred to Op No.2 to issue the insurance policies. Therefore, there is no deficiency in service on their part.  More over the matter of insurance is between the complainant and  OP No.2, OP No.1 was just having the account of the complainant and as per their instructions the amount was transferred to Op No.2 for issuance of the policies.  If for any reason policy has been cancelled or was not issued, it is not the fault of OP No.1. Therefore, liability has been wrongly fixed against the OP No.1.

12.              Whereas the counsel for the respondent/complainant has argued that the complainant and his wife had their bank accounts with  OP No.1. OP No.1 has not been able to show any authorization with him given by the complainant under which the amount was transferred by OP No.1 to OP No.2. On the record of the District Forum Ops have been able to place on record just one proposal form by complainant Darbara Singh, other proposal forms are not on the record. Moreover in case the policies would have been taken by the complainant and his wife, they would approached Op No.2 to get the policies and after that they would instruct OP No.1 to transfer the amount in favour of OP No.2. The proposal form placed on the record of District Forum and additional proposal forms placed in the appeal filed does not bear any signatures of any official or authorized agent of OP No.2 to prove that the complainant had approached OP No.2 to get these polices. Further two policies have been issued in June 2015 and at that time the complainant and his wife were not in India and this plea has been supported from the letter of the bank itself as Ex.C8 where the OP No.1 sent a letter to General Manager Planning and Development section of PNB stating that there is no consent to debit the amount and moreover customers were out of India. Therefore, these two policies of Rs.3 lakh each were not received by the appellant. Hence this amount is to be claimed with interest with effect from the date of issue of debit of their account. Therefore, it was requested to take up the matter with PNB Metlife Op No.2 to refund the amount of Rs.6 lakh along with interest. Further OP No.2 has not placed on the record any document to show that the policies were dispatched to the complainant and his wife. They came to know about these policies when they came to India and checked their accounts and some debt entries were made in their account. Therefore, no chance of free look period was given to them to check the policies to accept or reject them. In fact, when  the complainant had gone to OP No.1 for preparing their FDRs their signatures were taken by the bank official on dotted lines or plain paper of the bank and instead of preparing the FDRs in their favour, they got prepared the insurance policies in connivance with each other with some malafide intention and to put complainant to financial loss. Therefore, the order passed by the District Forum is justified.

13.              We have considered the contention as raised by the counsel for the parties. As per the statement of accounts placed on record by the Ex.OP1/2 the following amounts were withdrawn from the accounts of the complainant and his wife as under:-

Date	Account Details	Amount withdrawn (INR)	Exhibit
15.01.2015	Swarn Kaur, A/c No.0775000107193244	Rs.2,00,000/- Rs.2,00,000/-	OP1/2
30.01.2015	Darbara Singh A/o No.0775000107216925	Rs.4,00,000/- Rs.4,00,000/-	OP1/3
24.06.2015 26.06.2015	Darbara Singh A/o No.0775000107216925	Rs.3,00,000/- Rs.3,00,000/-	OP1/3

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

From the above,  withdrawal of a sum of Rs.2 lakh each on 15.01.2015 pertains to the account of Sawarn Kaur with her father Banta Singh. However, this complaint has been filed only by Darbara Singh and it is not a joint account with Darbara Singh. Therefore, the Darbara Singh cannot file the complaint on behalf of his wife Sawarn Kaur or her father Banta Singh unless there is some authority in his favour to file this complaint. Complaint is also silent with regard to any authority to Darbara Singh to file this complaint with regard to account No.0775000107193244 in the name of Sawarn Kaur and Banta Singh. Therefore, the order passed by the District Forum with regard to refund of this amount to Darbara Singh is totally illegal and not sustainable, because the account does not pertain to Darbara Singh. Therefore, the amount cannot be given back to Darbara Singh. Therefore, the order passed by the District Forum with regard to this amount is hereby set aside. However, liberty is granted to Sawarn Kaur or his father Banta Singh to file a fresh complaint with regard to adjustment/refund of this amount in their account.

14.              Now coming to the amounts withdrawn from the joint account of Darbara Singh and his wife Sawarn Kaur. Since the complaint filed by Darbara Singh one of the account holder, therefore,  the complaint by Darbara Singh with regard to withdrawal of amounts from their joint account is maintainable. From this account a sum of Rs.14 lakh was withdrawn.

                   PNB Metlife Insurance Company issued the following policies in the name of the complainant and his wife:-

Name of Policy Holder	Date of Issue of Policy	Policy No.	Premium	Plan
Darbara Singh	03.03.2015	21490854	Rs.6,00,000/-	Met-Smart Platinum
Darbara Singh	24.06.2017	21490854	Rs.6,00,000/-	Met-Smart Platinum-New
Darbara Singh	16.05.2017	21614730	Rs.3,00,000/-	Metlife-Smart Platinum-New
Swaran Kaur	03.03.2015	21530601	Rs.6,00,000/-	Met-Smart Platinum
Swaran Kaur	16.05.2017	21588257	Rs.3,00,000/-	Metlife-Smart Platinum-New

 

From the above, one policy issued in the name of Sawarn Kaur on 03.03.2015 policy No.2153060 was cancelled and the amount was credited in the joint account of the complainant and his wife. After that two policies dated 16.05.2017 pertaining No.21614730 and 21588257 were issued to Darbara Singh and Swaran Kaur and one policy of Rs.6 lakh in the name of Darbara Singh, it is pertinent to mention here that policy No. 21490854 issued on 03.03.2015 was again issued in name of Darbara Singh on 24.06.2017 with same No. 21490854 and same premium amount under the plan Metlife Smart Platinum New, for that no fresh proposal form was submitted by the complainant Darbara Singh. There were no instructions on behalf of Darbara Singh to get any additional policy under new plan Metlife Smart Platinum new and no amount was withdrawal from the joint account of Darbara Singh and Swaran Kaur. It is astonishing how OP No.2 issued this policy without taking a premium and without getting proposal form from Darbara Singh. It is pertinent to mention to here as stated above in the document Ex.C8 at that time the Darbara Singh and Sawarn Kaur were outside India in June 2015. Darbara Singh had left India on 01.05.2015 and came back to India on 04.04.2017as per entries in his passport. Therefore, it is beyond imagination how the policy can be issued in favour of a person who was not in country. It is also pertinent to mention here that when any policy is issued, its policy documents are issued in favour of the policy holder and under the guidelines of IRDA 15 days free look period is given to check the policy documents. In case, it is according to his directions, he can accept the policy documents otherwise within a period of 15 days he can give the direction to the insurer to cancel  the policy in case the policy document was not issued according to his/her instructions. There is no document how policies issued on 16.05.2017 were dispatched to the complainant. It is also pertinent to mention here that amount of Rs.3 lakh each was debit to the account of Darbara Singh on 24.06.2015 and 26.06.2015. in case, amount of Rs.3 lakh each was debited to the account of the Darbara Singh on the above said dates, OP No.2 has not been able to explain where the amount of Rs.6 lakh was kept upto 16.05.2017 when policies were issued. In case, the premium was received by OP No.2 in June 2015, it has not been explained why the policy was not issued in June 2015. With regard to policy No.21490854 no document has been placed on the record by OP No.2 how this policy was conveyed to the Darbara Singh specifically  when he had left India on 01.05.2015 and the policy was issued on 24.06.2015.

 

15.              In case, we examine the entire pleadings and evidence on the record, it is clear that no instructions were given by the complainant and his wife to get the insurance policies. In that circumstance, the version of the complainant that they had given the directions to issue FRDs of Rs.6 lakhs each from their account seems to be correct, but OP No.1 and 2 inconvainance with each other to flourish their business of insurance instead of issuing the FDRs with a malafide intention have issued the insurance policies which were never conveyed to the complainant and his wife. Therefore, there is no occasion for them either to accept or cancel  it. In these circumstances, the complainant is entitled for the refund of Rs.8 lakhs along with interest from  the account of Darbara Singh. Out of amount of Rs.14 lakh withdrawn from this account a sum of Rs.6 lakh was received back in his account. Therefore, only a sum of Rs.8 lakh has been used from his account to issue these policies. Therefore, Dabara Singh will be entitled to get back a sum of Rs.8 lakh along with interest from the date of withdrawal as observed by the District Forum.  

16.              No other point was argued.

 

17.              Sequel to above, we partly accept the appeal filed by the appellants/Ops and order passed by the District Forum is modified that instead of Rs.12 lakh complainant Darbara Singh will be entitled to get back Rs.8 lakh along with interest at the rate of 12% from the various dates of withdrawals. There will be no change in the amount of compensation and litigation expenses awarded by the District Forum. Both  the Ops will be jointly and vicariously liable to these amounts as observed by the District Forum. With regard to sum of Rs.4 lakh withdrawn from the account of Swaran Kaur and her father Banta Singh they will reserve the right to file a fresh complaint for the refund/adjustment of sum of Rs.4 lakh withdrawn from their account on 15.01.2015.

18.              In Appeal No.38 of 2018 the appellant had deposited an amount of Rs.25000/- with this Commission at the time of filing of the appeal.  This amount with interest accrued thereon, if any, be remitted to the concerned District Forum, after the expiry of 90 days, from the dispatch of the certified copy of the order to the parties; subject to stay, if any, by the higher Fora/Court for release of the above amount and the District Forum may pass the appropriate order in this regard.

19.              In Appeal No.30 of 2018 the appellant had deposited an amount of Rs.25000/- with this Commission at the time of filing of the appeal.  This amount with interest accrued thereon, if any, be remitted to the concerned District Forum, after the expiry of 90 days, from the dispatch of the certified copy of the order to the parties; subject to stay, if any, by the higher Fora/Court for release of the above amount and the District Forum may pass the appropriate order in this regard.

20.              Copy of this order be placed on FA No.30 of 2018.

 

                                                                  (Gurcharan Singh Saran)

                                                                   Presiding Judicial Member

 

 

                                                                  

May  11   ,2018                                       (Rajinder Kumar Goyal)

Pk/-                                                                     Member