Punjab

Ludhiana

CC/15/741

Daljit Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

Avinash Sharma Adv.

01 Jun 2017

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, LUDHIANA.

 

Consumer Complaint No. : 741 of 24.12.2015

   Date of Decision            :   01.06.2017

 

Daljit Singh son of S.Darshan Singh, resident of House No.352-I, Bhai Randhir Singh Nagar, Ludhiana.

….. Complainant

Versus

 

1.HDFC Standard Life Insurance Company Limited, 11^th Floor, Lodha Exelus, Appollo Mills Compound, N.M.Joshi Marg, Mahalaxmi, Mumbai-400011, Maharashtra.

2.HDFC Standard Life Insurance Company Limited, 3^rd Floor, above Titan Show Room, Feroze Gandhi Market, Ludhiana-141001, through its Manager.

…Opposite parties

 

          (Complaint U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986)

 

QUORUM:

SH.G.K.DHIR, PRESIDENT

SH.PARAM JIT SINGH BEWLI, MEMBER

 

COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES:

For complainant               :         Sh.Avinash Sharma, Advocate

For OPs                           :         Sh.Nitin Kapila, Advocate

 

PER G.K DHIR, PRESIDENT

 

1.                           Complainant after receiving a telephonic call and persuasions from Ops, agreed to avail insurance policy. As per demand of Ops, complainant sent the papers, documents, id proofs and residential proofs through Trackon Couriers Private Limited on 19.12.2014. Cheque No.187008 dated 18.12.2014 drawn on State Bank of India for Rs.25,000/- was sent for HDFC Life Policy along with the demanded documents. That cheque was acknowledged by Ops vide receipt No.C0254053 dated 13.1.2015 against client ID 74749217 on account of premium towards the policy to be issued. Despite that the complainant never received any policy from Ops till date. Name of daughter of complainant is Manpreet Kaur. Complainant instructed Ops to mention said Manpreet Kaur as nominee in the insurance policy. That Manpreet Kaur is student having no source of income. However, to the utter surprise of the complainant, Ops issued letter to said Manpreet Kaur on 15.6.2015 for dispatching policy No.17363392. On enquiry, complainant got knowledge as if the policy has not been prepared in his name, but the same issued in the name of his daughter Ms.Manpreet Kaur. House number of the complainant has been wrongly mentioned as 532-I, despite the fact that same is House No.352-I. Complainant got knowledge about the policy number after paying several visits to office of HDFC company. Manpreet Kaur did not sign any form or document, but despite that policy has been sent in her name and same alleged to be an act of unfair trade practice. One Mandeep Kaur put her signatures on the proposal form, despite the fact that name of daughter of complainant is Manpreet Kaur. Policy documents has not been sent for nine months despite requests and reminders sent by the complainant and as such, he had to sent legal registered notice dated 11.8.2015 through counsel for calling upon Ops to refund Rs.25,000/- with interest @24% per annum. Vague reply to that legal notice dated 26.8.2015 was sent for shirking liability by Ops. By pleading deficiency in service on the part of Ops, prayer made for directing Ops to refund amount of Rs.25,000/- with interest @9% per annum. Compensation for mental harassment of Rs.70,000/-, but litigation expenses of Rs.4500/- more claimed.

2.                 In joint written statement filed by OPs, it is pleaded interalia as if complaint is not maintainable; complainant has no cause of action available against Ops; this Forum has no territorial jurisdiction and in view of allegations of forgery of signatures levelled in the complaint, competent civil court alone has jurisdiction to entertain and decide the question. Besides, it is claimed that the complainant is not a consumer and nor any policy issued in his name. Rather, the policy documents were issued in favour of Manpreet Kaur and as such, complaint filed by Daljit Singh is not maintainable in the present form. In fact, the policy documents were received on behalf of the daughter of the complainant namely Manpreet Kaur and even she submitted Aadhar Card along with driving license and proof of identity and address. House No.532, I-Block, Near Gurudwara Kotia Sahib, BRS Nagar, Ludhiana is mentioned as address of Manpreet Kaur and the policy documents were issued on the basis of that supplied address. Complainant Daljit Singh was mentioned as nominee in the policy and as such, question of issuance of policy in the name of complainant Daljit Singh does not arise. Policy was issued on the basis of duly signed proposal form received by Ops from Manpreet Kaur. Manpreet Kaur signed the proposal form after reading, understanding and admitting the contents of the same. Copies of documents submitted by Manpreet Kaur are produced along with written statement. Payments made by Manpreet Kaur were duly acknowledged by Ops by issue of receipt in her favour on 19.1.2015 as first premium receipt towards policy No.17363392. The policy was duly dispatched and received by Manpreet Kaur on the address mentioned in the policy and the submitted address proof documents produced by the complainant were never received by Ops. Each and every other averment of the complaint denied except that policy documents were supplied by Ops through Blue Dart Courier through AWB No.33162443193. The policy was duly received by mother of Manpreet Kaur on 7.2.2015. 15 days free look in period was provided for cancelling the policy, if terms were found not acceptable to the policy holder. That option of cancellation never exercised and as such, contract of insurance alleged to be binding on the parties, particularly when the complainant made fully aware of the terms and conditions of the policy. After getting benefit, complainant is making false story of harassing Ops. Admittedly, a letter from Manpreet Kaur was received on 12.6.2015 by the Ops, but it is claimed that allegations levelled in the said letter were false and were found so after due investigation got conducted by Ops. Admittedly, the complainant sent registered notice dated 11.8.2015 through counsel, but due reply thereof was sent by Ops on 26.8.2015 for explaining the factual position. It is claimed that there is no deficiency in service on the part of Ops and nor they adopted any unfair trade practice.

3.                 Complainant to prove his case tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex.CA along with documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C15 including Ex.C13A and then he along with his counsel closed the evidence.

4.                 On the other hand, counsel for OPs tendered in evidence affidavit Ex.RA of Sh.Amit Khanna, Authorized representative of OPs along with documents Ex.R1 to Ex.R17 and thereafter, closed the evidence.

5.                           Written arguments not submitted by any of the parties. Oral arguments of counsel for the parties heard. Records gone through minutely. 

6.                 Complainant has produced on record copy of courier receipt of Trackon Couriers Pvt. Ltd Ex.C1 for proving that he sent the forms for purchase of policy by sending cheque of Rs.25,000/-, copy of which is produced on record as Ex.C2. On Ex.C2, where name of Manpreet Kaur is mentioned, she is disclosed as nominee, but where name of Daljit Singh is mentioned, the same mentioned as policy holder and as such, in view of this, it is vehemently contended that in fact the policy was contemplated to be purchased in the name of complainant by appointing Manpreet Kaur as nominee. Even if contents of Ex.C2 may be disclosing the position as referred above, despite that contents of proposal form and other documents is the determining factor for finding as to by whom the policy was purchased and to whom by appointing  nominee. On document Ex.C2, words or policy holder can be written by anyone at any time and as such, contents of Ex.C2 qua endorsement of Manpreet Kaur as nominee and Daljit Singh as policy holder cannot be accepted as correct on its face value at all.

7.                 Copy of PAN card of the complainant as Ex.C3 and that of his Aadhar Card as Ex.C4 as well as of driving license Ex.C5 are produced on record, but these documents just mention about the proof of identity of the complainant.

8.                 If in Aadhar Card Ex.C4, house number of complainant is mentioned as 352-I-block, Near Railway Line, B.R.S.Nagar, Ludhiana, then to the contrary in receipt dated 13.1.2015, house number of Manpreet Kaur mentioned as No.532 I Block, Near Gurudwara Kutiasahib, BRS Nagar, Ludhiana. As this address of Manpreet Kaur is not the same as is of the complainant mentioned in the Aadhar Card Ex.C4 and as such, it is vehemently contended by counsel for complainant that documents prepared by Ops are forged and that is why, complaint Ex.C6 was lodged by daughter of the complainant by mentioning her address as House No.352-I, BRS Nagar, Ludhiana. Through Ex.C6, it is claimed as if address of Manpreet Kaur on driving license even has been tempered with and her signatures had been forged by the employees. Reliance on contents of Ex.C6 or the submissions in that respect of counsel for complainant cannot be placed at all because it is the case of the complainant itself that they sent the cheque Ex.C2 along with policy forms through Trackon Couriers Pvt. Ltd. and that is why, receipt Ex.C1 in that respect has been produced. If such documents were sent by the complainant or her daughter through courier by putting signatures thereon, then question of forging those documents by Ops does not arise at all.

9.                 Ex.R1 is Welcome letter, which shows the address of Manpreet Kaur d/o Daljit Singh  House No.532 1 Block Near Gurudwara Kutiasahib, Brs Nagar, Ludhiana. Same address also mentioned in policy document Ex.R2. That address of Manpreet Kaur with House No.532-I-Block, Near Gurudwara Kutia Sahib, B.r.s.Nagar, Ludhiana mentioned in the policy document on the basis of copy of Aadhar Card Ex.R5. This copy of Aadhar Card was sent by the complainant or his daughter to Ops through courier and that is why the same came in hands of officials of Ops. Signatures of Manpreet Kaur are there on this document Ex.R5 and as such, it is obvious that House No.532-I-Block, Near Gurudwara Kutia Sahib, B.r.s.Nagar, Ludhiana of Manpreet Kaur mentioned in the policy documents because mention of the same in the Aadhar Card Ex.R5 is made. So, it is a case, in which, address of Manpreet Kaur mentioned in the policy documents as the same as was supplied by the complainant Daljit Singh or his daughter Manpreet Kaur by sending the copy of Aadhar Card Ex.R5. Same address of Manrpreet Kaur even mentioned in the proposal form Ex.R9. So, submissions advanced by counsel for Ops has force that due address of Manpreet Kaur as supplied by her through copy of Aadhar Card and proposal form was mentioned in the policy documents.

10.               Documents Ex.R3 to Ex.R6 bears signatures of Manpreet Kaur and not Mandeep Kaur and as such, submissions advanced by counsel for complainant has no force that in fact, signatures of one Mandeep Kaur has been forged for denoting as if they are of Manpreet Kaur, daughter of complainant. The policy documents were issued on the basis of proposal form submitted by daughter of complainant and as such, just lodging of complaints Ex.C6 or Ex.C8 or act of sending notice Ex.C12 through postal receipts Ex.C13 does not prove the case of the complainant, particularly when due reply to the legal notice was sent by Ops through counsel and copy of same is placed on record as ex.C11. That reply has been sent after verifying the facts from the record and as such, certainly deficiency in service on the part of Ops is not there. If address of Manpreet Kaur as House No.352-I Block, near Gurudwara Kutiasahib, Ludhiana mentioned in the Aadhar Card Ex.C4 and the same address mentioned in her driving license Ex.C15, then mentioning of different address in Ex.R5 or the proposal form Ex.R9 is because of receipt of later mentioned documents by Ops through courier sent by the complainant. Though, allegations of fraud levelled, but those are not proved from the material produced on record by the Ops and as such, in view of the fact that policy issued on the basis of received documents, it has to be held that deficiency in service on the part of Ops is not there.

11.               It is well settled that when allegations of fraud, forgery or of cheating levelled, then they require adducing of elaborate evidence pointing out the circumstances and the manner, in which, fraud or forgery committed and as such, Consumer Fora will have no jurisdiction to decide those question in summary proceedings. These observations of are based on law laid down in cases titled as P.N.Khanna vs. Bank of India-II(2015)CPJ-54(N.C.); Bright Transport Company vs. Sangli Sehkari Bank Ltd.,II(2012)CPJ-151(N.C.); Oriental Insurance Company Limited vs. Mani Mahesh Patel-VI(2006)SLT-436=2006(2)CPC-668(S.C.); Reliance Industries Limited vs. United India Insurance Company Limited-I(1998)CPJ-13(N.C.); M/s Singhal Swaroop Ispat Limited vs. United Commercial Bank-III(1992)CPJ-50(N.C.); Sangli Ram vs. General Manager, United India Insurance Company Limited-II(1994)CPJ-444; Harbans and company vs. State Bank of India-II(1994)CPJ-456; Ranju Devi vs. Branch Manager, State Bank of India-2015(4)CLT-131(JHK). As proceedings before the Consumer Forum are summary in nature, but allegations of forgery levelled in this case requires elaborate evidence and as such, complainant, if advised may approach the Civil Court of competent jurisdiction because complex question of law and facts qua fraud can be decided by that Court and not in these summary proceedings. No other point argued.

12.               Therefore, as a sequel of the above discussion, complaint dismissed with observation that in case complainant feels that forgery/fraud is committed with him, then he can approach the Civil Court of competent jurisdiction for redressal of that grievance. No order as to costs. Copies of order be supplied to parties free of costs as per rules.

13.                         File be indexed and consigned to record room.

 

 

 (Param Jit Singh Bewli)                            (G.K.Dhir)

 Member                                                      President

Announced in Open Forum

Dated:01.06.2017

Gurpreet Sharma.