Punjab

Fatehgarh Sahib

CC/36/2016

Gurpreet singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

HDFC BANK - Opp.Party(s)

Sh jasvir singh

07 Apr 2017

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, FATEHGARH SAHIB.

                      Consumer Complaint No.36 of 2016

                                                            Date of institution:  21.03.2016                         

                                                    Date of decision  :   07.04.2017

1. Gurpreet Singh aged about 37 years son of Sh. Bhag Singh,
2. Sarabjit Kaur aged about 41 years wife of Gurpreet Singh son of Sh. Bhag Singh both residents of village Amrala, Tehsil Khamano, District Fatehgarh Sahib now residing at village Chanarthal Khurd, Tehsil and District Fatehgarh Sahib.

……..Complainants

Versus

 

1. HDFC SL, Branch Ist & 2^nd Floor, SCO No.1A-120, S.C.O. No.101, 102,103, Sector 43-B, Chandigarh through its authorized signatory.
2. HDFC Standard Life Insurance Co. Ltd. Eureka Towers 5^th Floor, Mind Space Complex Lind Road, Malad West Mumbai-400064 through its Managing Director.
3. HDFC Bank Ltd, Branch Bassi Pathana, Tehsil Bassi Pathana, District Fatehgarh Sahib through its Manager.

 …..Opposite Parties

Complaint under Sections 11 to 14 of the Consumer Protection Act

Quorum

Sh. Ajit Pal Singh Rajput, President                                       Sh. Inder Jit, Member                                            

Present :        Sh. J.S.Ranwan, Adv. Cl. for the complainant                                             Sh. R.K. Dhiman, Adv. Cl. for OPs No.1 & 2.

                      Opposite party No.3 exparte.

 

ORDER

By Ajit Pal Singh Rajput, President

            Complainants, Gurpreet Singh and Sarabjit Kaur, both  residents of village Amrala, Tehsil Khamano, District Fatehgarh Sahib now residing at village Chanarthal Khurd, Tehsil and District Fatehgarh Sahib, have filed this complaint against the Opposite parties (hereinafter referred to as “the OPs”) under Sections 11 to 14 of the Consumer Protection Act. The brief facts of the complaint are as under:

2                    The father of the complainant No.1, namely; Bhag Singh, sold his land in the year 2009 for a total sale consideration of Rs.38,00,000/- and deposited the total amount with OP No.3.  Thereafter in the last week of December, 2009, employees/agents of OPs, namely; Jaskamal Singh, Romi Kohli and Sanjeev Kumar came to the house of the complainants at their village and requested the complainants and Bhag Singh to deposit the said amount in the shape of FDRs and also assured that if they deposit the amount in FDRs, OPs will give 18% guaranteed interest to the complainants along with other benefits. Accordingly, in the last week of December, 2009, the father of the complainant No.1, namely; Bhag Singh deposited Rs.15,00,000/- through cheque for two FDRs of Rs.7,50,000/- each in his own name for the period of one year and also deposited Rs.2,00,000/- through cheque of Rs.99,999/- each for other two FDRs of equal amount in the name of complainants, for the period of one year.  Thereafter the complainants were shocked when the OPs invested the said amount in two policies bearing No.13347651 and No.13347615 in the name of complainants without any information, knowledge and consent of the complainants. Thereafter the OPs sent notice/letter to the complainants to deposit the next premium regarding the said policies. The complainants approached OP No.3 about the same and it assured that there is no need to deposit more money or any installments and the said amount will be returned along with guaranteed interest after passing three years. Then after three years, the complainants again went to the office of OP No.3 for taking their money. The officials of OP No.3 again assured the complainants that they will get double of their amount after lapse of five years. Then after expiry of 5 years, the complainants again visited the office of OP No.3 and requested to pay the double amount of the amount deposited in the shape of FDRs. But the OPs started lingering on the matter on one pretext or the other. The complainants also moved an application dated 16.04.2015 to OP No.3 to pay the said amount along with interest but the officials of OP No.3 did not pay any heed to the genuine requests of the complainants. Thereafter complainants also moved another application for payment of their amount but all in vain. The act and conduct of the OPs amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on their part. Hence, this complaint for giving directions to the OPs to refund Rs.99,999/- each to the complainants along with interest, Rs.2,00,000/- as compensation for loss due to unnecessary harassment, mental pain and agony and Rs.5500/- as litigation expenses.

3.                    Notices of the complaint were issued to the OPs, but OP No.3 chose not to appear to contest this complaint. Hence OP No.3 was proceeded against exparte.

4.                   The complaint is contested by OPs No.1 & 2, who filed joint written reply. In reply to the complaint, OPs No.1 & 2 raised certain preliminary objections, inter alia,  that this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the present complaint; the present complaint is false, frivolous, vexatious and an abuse of process of law; the present complaint is not maintainable in the present form; the complaint is hopelessly time barred and not filed within the statutory period of two years from the date of purchase of the insurance policies and the complaint is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. As regards to the facts of the complaint OPs No.1 & 2 stated that the complainants had opted for obtaining the insurance policies by submitting the proposal forms knowing well that OP is not a bank engaged in issuing FDRs but is an Insurance Company doing insurance business under the IRDA provisions.  The insurance policies were issued on the basis of proposal form submitted by the complainants before obtaining the insurance policy keeping in view their requirements and submitted the same to the OPs along with a signed copy of the benefit illustrations for purpose of issuance of the policies. It is further stated that in case the insured was not satisfied with the insurance policy, as per agreed terms and conditions of the policy and IRDA Regulations, 2002, the policy holder had an option to cancel the policy within 15 days of receipt of the policy bond. But the complainants failed to approach the OPs for cancellation of the policy within the free look period of 15 days. As per terms and conditions of the policy, the complainants were liable to pay the premium regularly, but the complainants failed to pay premium regularly and, as such, the insurance policy lapsed and nothing is payable to the complainants. There is no deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on their part.  After denying the other averments made in the complaint, OPs No.1 & 2 prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

5.                   In order to prove their case, the complainants tendered in evidence attested copies of policies Ex. C-1 & C-2, attested copies of proposal forms Ex. C-3 & C-4, bank statement Ex. C-5, copy of application dated 16.04.2015 Ex. C-6, postal receipt Ex. C-7, application dated 16.09.2015 Ex. C-8, postal receipts Ex. C-9 & C9/A, letter of acknowledgment Ex. C-10, copy of voter card  of complainant No. 2 Ex. C-11, copy of certificate of middle standard Ex. C-12, affidavit of complainant No.1 Ex. C-13, affidavit of Bhag Singh Ex. C-14 and closed the evidence. In rebuttal OPs No. 1 & 2 tendered in evidence affidavit of Sh. Amit Khanna, Deputy Manager Legal, Ex. OP1/1, true copies of documents i.e. Unit Link proposal form of complainants Ex. OP1/2 & Ex. OP1/3, quotation(containing total 8 pages) Ex. OP1/4 & OP1/5, mandate form Ex. OP1/6 & OP1/10, consultant confidential report Ex. OP1/7 & OP1/8, policy information Ex. OP1/9, voter card and school certificate of Sarabjeet Kaur Ex. OP1/11 & OP1/12, DL and voter card of Gurpreet Singh Ex. OP1/13 & OP1/14 and closed the evidence.

6.                   Learned counsel for the OPs has submitted that his preliminary objections with regard to maintainability of the present complaint be adjudicated first.He pleaded  that it is established from the copies of policies Ex. C-1 & C-2,copies of proposal forms Ex. C-3 & C-4 and Unit Link proposal form of complainants Ex. OP1/2 & Ex. OP1/3 that the said policies are unit linked policies.The learned counsel stated that the present case is covered by the judgment of  Hon’ble National Commission ,in case, titled as Ram Lal Aggarwal Vs Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Co.Ltd ,wherein it has been held that unit linked policies are covered under commercial purpose as per the provisions of Act, hence complainant is not a consumer.

7.                   On the other hand, the Learned counsel for complainant objected to the submissions made by the counsel for the OPs.He stated that the judgment citied by the OPs is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case,thus this Forum is fully competent to adjudicate upon the present complaint on merits.

8.                   After hearing the Learned counsel for the parties and going through the pleadings and the material placed on record, we find force in the submissions made by the ld. counsel for the OPs. It is evident from the copies of policies Ex. C-1 & C-2,copies of proposal forms Ex. C-3 & C-4 and Unit Link proposal form of complainants Ex. OP1/2 & Ex. OP1/3 that the said policies were unit linked policies. The Hon’ble National Commission ,in case, titled as Ram Lal Aggarwal Vs Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Co.Ltd, Revision Petition No.658 of 2013, decided on 23/04/2013 and the Hon’ble State Commission, Punjab, in case of Paramjit Kaur Vs  Aviva Life Insurance Company India Ltd, in C.C No.96 of 2011 decided on 04.07.2014 had observed in para no.6 & 7;

 “In above said judgment the dispute was regarding Unit Linked Insurance Policy and the claim made under that Policy was disallowed by the District Forum by making the following observations:-

“The investment made by the petitioner/complainant was to gain profit. Hence it was invested for commercial purposes and, therefore, the petitioner/complainant is not a consumer under the     opposite parties. The State Commission Odisha in First Appeal No.162 of 2010 in the case of Smt. Abanti Kumari Sahoo v. Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Company Ltd., have held that the money of the petitioner/complainant invested in the share market is no doubt a speculative gain and the speculative investment matter does not come under the Consumer Protection Act and accordingly, the State Commission dismissed the appeal.”

On the basis of the findings so recorded by the District Forum it came to the conclusion that the complaint was not maintainable under the Act and was dismissed. Against the order of the District Forum, the petitioner filed an appeal before the State Commission, which did not find any reason to differ with the finding recorded by the District Forum and accordingly rejected the appeal memo at the admission stage. Dissatisfied with that order the petitioner filed a revision before the Hon’ble National Commission. It was held that there was no jurisdictional error, illegality or infirmity in the order passed by the State Commission warranting inference and the revision was dismissed. It becomes very much clear from this judgment that complaint in respect of the claim under Unit Linked Insurance Policy is not maintainable under the Act; the money having been invested in a speculative business. It appears that on account of that reason itself the learned counsel for the complainant has not refuted the submissions made by the learned counsel for the opposite party.”

9.                    Accordingly, in view of the aforesaid case law, we are of the considerate view that the present complaint is not maintainable, as the complainant is not a consumer. Hence the present complaint is hereby disposed of with the direction to the complainant to approach the appropriate Court of Law for redressal of his grievances against the OPs. Complainant may also be entitled to the benefit of the observations by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case titled as Laxmi Engineering Works Vs. P.S.G. Industrial Institute II(1995) CPJ 1 (SC), for the purpose of exclusion of time spent before this Forum. All the original and requisite documents placed on record be returned to the complainant.  Parties to bear their own cost. A copy of the complaint be retained for record.   

10.       Copy of the order be sent to the parties free of cost and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.

Pronounced

Dated:  07.04.2017                                                 (A.P.S.Rajput)                                                 

                                                                                   President   

   

                                                                                 (Inder Jit)           

                                                                                         Member