Punjab

Sangrur

CC/647/2014

Jaswinder Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

HDFC Standard Life Ins. - Opp.Party(s)

Shri Gurinder Pal Sharma

09 Apr 2015

ORDER

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR

                                      

                                                          Complaint no. 647                                                                                      

                                                         Instituted on:  08.12.2014

                                                          Decided on:    09.04.2015

Jaswinder Singh son of Dalwara Singh resident of Street No.3, Village Dittupur, Tehsil & District Sangrur.

                                                …. Complainant.      

                                        Versus

1.  HDFC  Standard Life Insurance Company Limited, Branch Office : 1^st Floor, Adjoining Sanatan Dharam Mandir, Nabha Gate, Sangrur through its Branch Manager.

2.  HDFC Bank Limited, Branch Office: Bhawanigarh, District Sangrur through its Branch Manager. 

      ….Opposite parties.

 

FOR THE COMPLAINANT:    Shri G. P. Sharma,  Advocate                          

 

FOR OPP. PARTY NO.1   :      Shri Sumir Fatta, Advocate                          

 

FOR OPP. PARTY NO.2  :      Shri S.S.Punia,  Advocate                     

 

Quorum

         

                    Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

K.C.Sharma, Member

Sarita Garg, Member

                                   

ORDER:  

 

K.C.Sharma, Member

 

1.             Jaswinder Singh, complainant has preferred the present complaint against the opposite parties (referred to as OPs in short) on the ground that he is having a saving bank account with OP No.2.  In the month of October 2012, the complainant went to  OP No.2 and requested  to  make a Fixed Deposit  of Rs.25000/-. In this regard the complainant issued a cheque number 000756 dated 19.10.2012 of Rs.25000/- .  After passing of about five days, when the complainant did not receive the FD from the OP No.2  then the official of the OP No.2  put off the matter on one pretext or the other. Thereafter on the assurance  of  OP No.2, complainant deposited Rs.25000/-  in cash  with the OP No.2 for making of FDR in the month of October 2013. Again the complainant did not receive any FDR. On inquiry by the complainant, the officials of the OP No.2 told to the complainant that  he invested  his amount of Rs.25000/- plus Rs.25000/- in the insurance policies.  The complainant demanded his FDRs from OP No.2 then OP No.1  handed over the policy documents to the complainant at the office of OP No.2.  Thereafter the complainant made number of requests to the officials of the OPs for the cancellation of the policy and to return/ refund the amount of Rs.50,000/-  but till today no action has been taken.   Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of OPs, the complainant has sought following reliefs:- 

i)      OPs be directed to cancel  the policy number 15531928 and to refund the amount of Rs.25000/- along with interest from 26.10.2012 till realization,

ii)     OPs be directed to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.50000/- as compensation   on account of mental agony, harassment and to pay Rs.11000/- as litigation expenses.

2.           In reply filed by OP No.1,  legal objections on the grounds of maintainability  and suppression of material facts have been taken up.  On merits, it is denied that the complainant ever requested the officials of the OP No.2 to make fixed deposit.  It is also denied that the official of the OP No.2 got the signature of the complainant on some blank and printed performa for making the F.D. It is submitted that the complainant  approached the  OP to purchase a policy of HDFC  children double benefit plan on 22.10.2012 and for this purpose  he submitted all the relevant documents and signed the proposal form after admitting and understanding all the terms and conditions of the policy.  The complainant made the payment of Rs.24250/- . The said policy was for a period of 11 years with annual premium of Rs.24250/.  It is also  denied that the officials of the OP No.2 insisted the complainant to make investments of another Rs.25000/-  in the shape of FDR.  It is submitted that complainant was asked to deposit  Rs.24250/-  each for the both policies.  It is stated that earlier in the year 2013 the OP has requested  the complainant to deposit Rs.24250/- as renewal premium for the policy  but despite requests the complainant failed to deposit the renewal premium.  If the complainant had not received the policy document  there was no reason for him to kept silent  for such a long period. Thus, there is no deficiency in service on the part of OP No.1.

3.             In reply filed by OP No.2, legal objections on the ground of maintainability  and suppression of material facts have been taken up.  It is denied that in the month of October 2012 the complainant went to the office of OP No.2 for fixed deposit of Rs.25000/- .  It is denied that after passing of 5 days complainant approached the office of OP No.2 and demand for FD.  It is not quite possible  that the person not received the copy of FDR  for two years remain mum.  It is even not possible that a person who not received his first FDR is ready to again to invest another Rs.25,000/- for other FDR.  It is submitted that the complainant  approached the office of OP No.2  just for insurance policies  not for FDRs.  It is denied that  the employee of OP No.1 handed over any policy documents to the complainant  in the office of OP no.2.  It is submitted that complainant never approached the office of OP No.2 for the fixed deposit.  It is denied that the complainant requested the office of OP No.1 to cancel  the policy and to make the FDR of Rs.50,000/- nor the cancellation of the policy is in the jurisdiction of OP No.1.  It is denied that the complainant  is not well educated. Rather the complainant signed all the documents in English.  Thus, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP No.2.

4.             The complainant has tendered documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-4 and closed evidence. On the other hand, OPs have tendered  documents  Ex. OP 1/1 to Ex.OP1/3 and  Ex.OP2/1 and closed evidence.

5.             After hearing the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and on the perusal of the documents placed on record, we find that the main point of controversy in the present complaint is whether the complainant had visited the OP No.2 for making the Fixed Deposit of Rs.25000/- on 19.10.2012 or not ?

6.             The version of the complainant is that  he issued cheque  number 000756 on 19.10.2012  for Rs.25000/-  for making the FDR and the OP No.2 had not handed over the FDR insipte of repeated requests from time to time and in order to get  the first FDR of Rs.25000/- the complainant had to deposit Rs.25000/-  more for the second FDR but the OP No.2  had handed over the policy documents instead of the FDRs. The version of the OPs is that  the complainant had never requested for the FDRs rather the policies  have been issued to the complainant as per his request.

7.             Learned counsel for the OPs have vehemently argued that  the complainant in order to apply the said policies have signed the  proposal form and on the first receipt for an amount of Rs.25000/- which is dated 22.10.2012 it has been clearly mentioned that  the policy has been issued and in support of his version the OP No.1 has placed on record documents Ex.OP1/1 and Ex.OP1/2. We have gone through the documents and found that the same bears the signatures of the complainant at different places and that too in English. From the perusal of the documents we find that the version of the complainant is not tenable that he  went to the office of OP No.2 for making the FDR as on the every page of the document Ex.OP1/1 and Ex.OP1/2 the name of the OP No.1 has been clearly mentioned and now it is very difficult to swallow the version of the complainant that OP No.2 had got issued the policy from OP No.1 instead of making the FDRs. Moreover the complainant has not placed on record  any evidence to show that he has been visiting the OP No.2 for getting the FDRs. It is very difficult to swallow the version of the complainant that the OP No.1 has not given the FDR for one year and in order to get the first FDR he had to deposit Rs.25000/- again in the year 2013.  Even then after getting the policy the complainant had not exercised the option for cancellation of the policies under free look period.    

8.             So, from the facts stated above,  we find no merit in the complaint and same is dismissed however with no order as to costs. Copy of the order be supplied to the parties free of charge. File be consigned to records in due course.

                Announced.

April 9, 2015.

 

 

 

 

( Sarita Garg)        ( K.C.Sharma)           (Sukhpal Singh Gill)                                                                                   

Member                Member                           President

 

 

BBS/-