DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, MANSA. Complaint No.18/06.02.2008 Decided on : 08.12.2008 Gurdeep Singh, Manager, Samrat Palace, Mansa at present Street No.3, Guru Nanak Dev Marg, Link Road, Mansa. ..... Complainant. VERSUS 1.H.D.F.C. Standard Life Insurance Company Limited, Walia Complex, Guru Kashi Marg, National Highway No.15, Ground Floor 3038, Bathinda. 2.Ms.Geeta Sharma (Agent), H.D.F.C., at present Branch H.D.F.C. Bank, Water Works Road, Mansa. ..... Opposite Parties. Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. ..... Present: Sh.Sunil Bansal, Advocate counsel for the complainant. Opposite Part No.1 exparte. Sh.P.K.Singla, Advocate counsel for Opposite Party No.2. Before: Sh.Pritam Singh Dhanoa, President. Sh.Sarat Chander, Member. Smt.Neena Rani Gupta, Member. ORDER:- This complaint has been filed by Sh.Gurdeep Singh, Manager, Samrat Palace, Mansa resident of Street No.3, Guru Nanak Dev Marg, Link Road, Mansa against H.D.F.C. Standard Life Insurance Company Limited, Bathinda and Agent of the said Company Ms.Geeta Sharma, resident of Mansa, under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short called the 'Act'). As per allegations made in the complaint, the complainant, on the assurance given by OP No.2, purchased an insurance Contd.......2 : 2 : policy bearing No.10167636 on 19.1.2005. The complainant paid the premium in the sum of Rs.2,768/- to OP No.1, through OP No.2. As such, he is a 'consumer' under the opposite parties. Before issuance of the insurance policy, OP No.2 had given assurance, to the complainant, that she would collect future installments, payable on account of premium to OP No.2 at Mansa and the complainant, would not face any difficulty. However, on the non-return of any official,to collect the second installment from the complainant, he met OP No.2. He was told by OP No.2 to deposit the further installments, in the office of OP No.1. In the month of March, 2006, the complainant issued cheque No.580642 in the sum of Rs.2,768/- and approached OP No.1 at Bathinda, but OP No.1 refused to receive the payment, unless he pays a sum of Rs.300/-, on account of interest and miscellaneous charges, because of delay in deposit of the amount. The complainant was also misbehaved, by Sh.Deepak Sharma, an employee of OP No.1. It is submitted that a competition, was organized in the premises of Akal Academy School, at Bhai Desa in which certificates were distributed to the children, studying in the said institution, including the sons of the complainant, namely, Manjinder Singh and Arvinder Singh. As such, the sons of the complainant approached OP No.2 in their office situated at Mansa and demanded, the certificates. The OP No.2, who had been appointed its Agent by OP No.1, told them that certificates, would not be delivered to them, unless they are accompanied, by their parents. The complainant and his wife, being employees, did not find time, to approach OP No.2, who used to contact them, on telephone and harass them, for non-appearance for collection of certificates. As the complainant and his wife approached OP No.2, she called them for brother and sister-in-law, and impressed upon them to purchase an insurance policy, through her and gave assurance that they would not face any problem in deposit of installment of premium. However, when OP No.1 refused to receive the second installment of premium, complainant approached the OP No.2, but Contd.......3 : 3 : she expressed her inability, to assist him and demanded, a period of two days to prevail upon the officials of the OP No.1 to accept the amount. The complainant again approached her, but she failed to give any satisfactory answer and misbehaved with him and his wife, who silently returned. to their house. Thereafter, the complainant served notice upon the opposite parties, but the same was not responded inspite of receipt thereof. As such, the opposite parties have entered into conspiracy, with each other, to cause mental and physical harassment to the complainant. They have also refused, to accept further installments of premium and to revive the insurance policy, issued in the name of the complainant. As such, complainant is entitled to receive a sum of Rs.10,000/- on account of compensation and a sum of Rs.2,200/- as fee paid, of his counsel and another sum of Rs.500/- as costs. Hence the complaint. On being put to notice, OP No.2 filed written submission resisting the complaint, by taking preliminary objections; that the complainant is not a consumer of answering opposite party, within its definition given in the Act; complainant has no locus standi and cause of action to file the present complaint; that the complaint is not maintainable in the present form; that the complainant, has concealed the material facts from this Forum and has not approached, it with clean hands, as such, not entitled, to the relief, prayed for; complaint is bad for non joinder of necessary parties; that complainant is estopped, by his own act and conduct and the complaint, being false and vexatious, is liable to be dismissed with costs. On merits, it is denied, that answering opposite party, has ever given any assurance, to the complainant or that she dealt with the insurance policy at any time issued by OP No.1, in the name of the complainant. It is further denied, that answering opposite party ever gave, any assurance to the complainant, to receive the installments, of the premium at her house at Mansa and to deposit the same, after collection, in the office of OP No.2. It is denied that answering opposite party, had been employed, as Agent of Contd.......4 : 4 : OP No.1. It is averred that Meenakshi Garg, was serving Agent of OP No.1 at the relevant time. It is also contended that OP No.1 has opened its office at Mansa on 07.07.2006 and answering opposite party, had joined its service, in the year 2007 with OP No.1. Rest of the averments made in the complaint, have been denied and a prayer has been made, for dismissal of the complaint with costs. The OP No.1 has been proceeded against exparte vide order dated 29.04.2008. In support of their pleas, both the complainant and the answering opposite party have led oral and documentary evidence. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the evidence adduced on record, with their kind assistance. At the out set, the learned counsel for the complainant Sh.Sunil Kumar Bansal, has submitted that, as per oral and documentary evidence, led by the complainant, it stands established that the insurance policy, was issued in his name, at the instance of OP No.2, who had given a commitment, to collect the future installments at Mansa, but the opposite parties subsequently have refused, to accept the second installment, because of which the complainant, has undergone mental and physical harassment. Learned counsel has submitted that even notice served upon the opposite parties, by the complainant, before filing of the complaint in this Forum, has not been replied, as such, a clear case is made out regarding deficiency in services. It is urged that direction be given to the opposite parties, to accept the amount due, on account of remaining installments and policy be revived and in the alternative, the amount deposited by the complainant, be refunded along with interest and costs. Learned counsel further urged, that in case alternative relief is granted by the Forum, then the complainant is also entitled to, receive adequate compensation, for harassment and inconvenience, because of the conduct of the opposite parties, who had indulged, in unfair trade practice. Contd.......5 : 5 : On the other hand, Sh.P.K.Singla, learned counsel for the answering opposite party, has submitted that complainant has failed to establish, by way of any positive evidence, that his client had played any role, in issuance of the insurance policy, in his name by OP NO.1 or that she was employed, as Agent with the said Company, at the relevant time. Learned counsel had further submitted that, there is no privity of contract between the answering opposite party and the complainant or OP NO.1 and she has not played, any role, in issuance of the insurance policy, therefore, she cannot be held liable, for any omission on the part of OP No.1. Learned counsel had argued that, complainant had produced oral and documentary evidence, to establish that, she has joined the service of OP No.1 in the year 2007, as such, complaint against her is liable to be dismissed. The complainant has produced on record a series of documents, including his affidavit, certificates, issued in the name of his sons, receipt issued by OP No.1, bank cheque No.580642 issued by him, in the name of OP No.1, on 30.3.2006, in the sum of Rs.2768/- drawn on his account, maintained with State Bank of Patiala, Industrial Area, Mansa and carbon copy of notice, Exhibits C-1 to C-6. In his affidavit, the complainant has reiterated, all the allegations, made in the complaint, but he has not brought on record, an iota of oral evidence, to corroborate his plea that OP No.2 had been working, as an Agent with OP No.1, at the time when insurance policy was issued, in his name. He have not examined any person, in whose presence, any assurance was given to him or his wife by OP No.2 or she collected, the amount of installments of the premium from him. On the other hand, OP No.2, has furnished her affidavit Ext.OP-2 reasserting the allegations, made in the written version, filed by her. She has categorically denied, in the written version and also in her affidavit that she had acted, as an Agent with OP No.1, at the time of issuance of insurance policy. However, she has admitted, that she has been appointed Contd.......6 : 6 : as representative of OP No.1 on 19.12.2007, whereas insurance policy had been issued on 19.1.2005. The OP No.2 has also produced on record, letter of her appointment, corroborating the contents of the affidavit. She has further produced on record, contract between OP No.2 and Ms.Meenakshi Garg, who was appointed as Agent by OP No.1 in the year 2005. Therefore, in the absence of any evidence, no liability can be fastened upon OP No.2, Ms.Geeta Sharma, for any lapse on the part of OP No.1. The statement of the complainant, made on oath that he approached OP No.1, for deposit of the amount of premium, in its office at Bathinda, has gone uncontroverted, as OP No.1 has not bothered to put up appearance and contest the complaint, on merit. He has also produced on record, copy of cheque No.580642 issued by him, on 30.3.2006 in the sum of Rs.2768/- for payment to OP No.1on account of second installment of premium. The statement of the complainant that OP No.1, has refused to accept, the premium, in the future, period on being approached by him and he was misbehaved, by its employee in the Bathinda office, has also gone unrebutted, for the same reason. After carefully evaluating the evidence and in view of the above discussion, we have come to the irresistible conclusion that complainant, is the 'consumer' within, its definition given in the Act and there is deficiency in service, on the part of Opposite Party No.1 in not accepting, the amount of future installments of premium, from the complainant. For the aforesaid reasons, we accept the complaint and direct OP No.1 i.e. HDFC Standard Life Insurance Company Limited, Bathinda to revive, the insurance policy in question, issued in the name of the complainant and to accept the remaining amount, of the installments of premium from him, subject to deposit of any amount, payable on account of delay, in payment of installments of premium, as interest, as per terms and conditions of the policy, within a period of 30 days from the date of Contd.......7 : 7 : receipt of, the copy of this order. The complaint against the OP No.2 is hereby dismissed. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, we do not consider a fit case, for grant of any amount on account of costs or compensation to the complainant. Parties are left to bear their own costs. Copies of the order be supplied to the parties free of charges under the rules and file be indexed and consigned to record. Pronounced: 08.12.2008 Neena Rani Gupta, Sarat Chander, P.S.Dhanoa, Member. Member. President.
