BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, MOGA.
Consumer Complaint No. 82 of 2017
Date of Institution: 08.09.2017
Date of Decision: 20.04.2018
Pritpal Singh, aged 30 years son of S.Amar Singh, resident of Patti Jasso, Village: Daudhar Sharki, District Moga.
Complainant
Versus
- HDFC Bank Limited, Branch Daudhar, Village: Daudhar Sharki, through its Branch Manager and Principal officer.
- HDFC Ergo General Insurance Company Limited, through its Branch Manager, G.T.Road, Dhillon Complex, Near Chakki Wali Gali, Moga.
- HDFC Ergo General Insurance Company Limited, Registered and Corporate Office: Ist Floor, 165-166, Backbay Reclamation H.T. Parkesh Marg, Churchgates Mumbai through its Managing Director.
Opposite Parties
Complaint under section 12/14 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
Present: For the Complainant: In person.
For Opposite Party no.1: Sh.Jasvinder Singh, Advocate
For Opposite Parties No.2 and 3: Sh.Ajay Gulati, Advocate.
Coram
Smt.Vinod Bala, Presiding Member
Smt.Bhupinder Kaur, Member.
Order dictated by:
Smt.Vinod Bala, Member
1. The complainant has brought the instant complaint under section 12/14 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 on the allegations that the Complainant has bank account with Opposite Party no.1 Bank. It is averred that the officials of Opposite Party no.1 have debited a sum of Rs.14,925/- on 12.11.2014 in the account of the Complainant. After some day, the Complainant came to know about the said fact and he met the concerned Manager of the Opposite Party no.1 bank and said Manager told the Complainant that they have converted the said amount in the insurance policy and next time, no amount will be debited. But again the Complainant came to know that the Opposite Party no.1 has converted the amount of Rs.14,491/- on 29.10.2015. But said insurance has been done by Opposite Party no.1 at their own without the consent of the Complainant and said action of the Opposite Parties is altogether illegal, unjust and unwarranted against the law. The Complainant requested the Opposite Parties to return the said amount, which they have debited illegally, unjustly, but the Opposite Parties are delaying the matter on one pretext or the other. Due to the aforesaid illegal and unwarranted acts and deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties, the Complainant has suffered huge mental tension and agony. Vide instant complaint, the complainant has sought the following reliefs.
a) Opposite Parties be directed to refund the amount of Rs.14,925/- and Rs.14,491/- which the Opposite Party no.1 has deducted out of the account of the Complainant and not to deduct any further amount from the account of the Complainant without his consent and also to pay Rs.50,000/- on account of mental tension, harassment and also to grant any other relief to which this Forum may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.
Hence, this complaint.
2. Upon notice, Opposite Party no.1 appeared and contested the complaint by filing written statement taking preliminary objections therein inter alia that Opposite Party no.1 bank is not carrying on Insurance Business as per the provisions of the banking Regulation Act and hence does not offer insurance products. The policy that forms the subject matter of this complaint was issued by Opposite Parties No.2 and 3 and hence the complaint can not be maintained nor relief sought by the Complainant be ordered against Opposite Party no.1. The role of the Opposite Party no.1 is that it has acted only as a facilitator/ referral agent and the actual insurance is issued by the insurance company i.e. Opposite Parties No.2 and 3 and as such, the complaint can not be filed against Opposite Party no.1 and is liable to be dismissed. There exists no privity of contract between the Complainant and the Opposite Party no.1 to claim the insurance from Opposite Party no.1 and as such, there is no deficiency in service on the part of Opposite Party no.1. On merits, the 1. On merits, the 1 took up the same and similar pleas as taken up by them in the preliminary objections. Remaining facts mentioned in the complaint are also denied and a prayer for dismissal of the complaint with cost was made.
3. Upon notice, Sh.Ajay Gulati, Advocate appeared on behalf of Opposite Parties No.2 and 3, but despite availing so many opportunities, no written version on behalf of Opposite Parties No.2 and 3 is filed. Hence, at last the defence of Opposite Parties No.2 and 3 stands struck off vide order dated 10.01.2018 of this Forum.
4. In his bid to prove the case, complainant tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.C1 in support of the allegations made in the complaint and also produced copy of Aadhaar card Ex.C2, copy of pass book of Opposite Party no.1 bank of the Complainant Ex.C3, copy of letter dated 1.3.2016 Ex.C4, copy of policy in the name of Amar Singh Ex.C5, copy of requirement letter Ex.C6, and closed his evidence.
5. On the other hand, to rebut the evidence of the complainant, the Opposite Party no.1 tendered into evidence the affidavit of Sh.Sandeep Baghla, Branch Head Ex.OP1/1 and closed the evidence on behalf of Opposite Party no.1. But however, on behalf of Opposite Parties No.2 and 3, neither any written version is filed, nor evidence is produced.
6. During the course of arguments, the Complainant has mainly reiterated the facts as narrated in the complaint and contended that the Complainant has bank account with Opposite Party no.1 Bank, copy of the pass book issued by Opposite Party no.1 bank in favour of the Complainant, accounts for Ex.C3. It is the case of the Complainant that the officials of Opposite Party no.1 have debited a sum of Rs.14,925/- on 12.11.2014 and thereafter also debited the amount of Rs.14,491/- on 29.10.2015 in the account of the Complainant without any pay-in-slip, cheque etc. or any other mode of encashment of the amounto, both the entries are duly reflected in the account of the Complainant, copy of the account statement accounts for Ex.C3 as referred above. It is contended that Opposite Party no.1 at their own without the consent of the Complainant has debited the said amount in some insurance scheme and said action of the Opposite Parties is altogether illegal, unjust and unwarranted against the law. The Complainant has submitted that he never requested the Opposite Party no.1 to transfer the aforesaid amount in some policy, nor he ever filled any proposal form in this regard. It is the further case of the Complainant that the insurance policy Ex.C5 has no concern with the Complainant as alleged policy, if any, because the same is in the name of Amar Singh and not in the name of the Complainant as the Complainant never opted or offered to purchase any such policy in his name and hence the deficiency is writ large on the part of the Opposite Party no.1 and in this regard, the Complainant has prayed for refund of the aforesaid amount with interest from the date of withdrawal of the amount from his account.
7. On the other hand, ld.counsel for Opposite Party no.1 has repelled the aforesaid contentions of the Complainant on the ground that Opposite Party no.1 bank is not carrying on Insurance Business as per the provisions of the banking Regulation Act and hence does not offer insurance products. The policy that forms the subject matter of this complaint was issued by Opposite Parties No.2 and 3 and hence the complaint can not be maintained nor relief sought by the Complainant be ordered against Opposite Party no.1. The role of the Opposite Party no.1 is that it has acted only as a facilitator/ referral agent and the actual insurance is issued by the insurance company i.e. Opposite Parties No.2 and 3 and as such, the complaint can not be filed against Opposite Party no.1 and is liable to be dismissed. There exists no privity of contract between the Complainant and the Opposite Party no.1 to claim the insurance from Opposite Party no.1 and as such, there is no deficiency in service on the part of Opposite Party no.1. But we are not in agreement with the aforesaid contention of the ld.counsel for Opposite Party no.1. The case of the Opposite Party no.1 is that the Complainant has prayed for issuance of insurance policy by debiting the amount in his account, but Opposite Party no.1 has failed to produce on record any proposal form, if any, neither the Opposite Party no.1 has placed on record any such policy if any, issued in the name of the Complainant in this regard by any insurance company. Hence, the amount debited in the account of the Complainant by Opposite Party no.1 without the consent or offer of the Complainant, amounts to deficiency in service on the part of Opposite Party no.1. The defence in this regard of Opposite Party no.1 that the role of the Opposite Party no.1 is that it has acted only as a facilitator/ referral agent and the actual insurance is issued by the insurance company i.e. Opposite Parties No.2 and 3, can not be admitted and said defence of Opposite Party no.1 is entirely based upon the surmises and conjectures and same can not be relied upon as gospel truth. In this way, the Complainant has proved his case with facts and figures. However, the Complainant has failed to prove his case against Opposite Parties No.2 and 3.
8. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, we direct Opposite Party no.1 to refund the amount of Rs.14,925/- and Rs.14,491/- to the Complainant alongwith reasonable rate of interest i.e. @ 3% per annum from the date of its withdrawal from the account of the Complainant i.e. from 12.11.2014 and 29.10.2015 respectively, till its actual realization. Opposite Party no.1 is also directed to pay Rs.3,000/- as costs of litigation to the Complainant. However, the complaint against Opposite Parties No.2 and 3 stands dismissed. Compliance of this order be made by Opposite Party no.1 within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which the Complainant shall be at liberty to get the order enforced through the indulgence of this Forum under section 25/27 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Copies of the order be furnished to the parties free of costs. File is ordered to be consigned to the record room.
Announced in Open Forum
