In  the  Court  of  the

Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Unit -I, Kolkata,

8B, Nelie Sengupta Sarani, Kolkata-700087.

CDF/Unit-I/Case No. 173/2010

1)                   Syed Mustaque Murshed, @ Syed Musahtaque Murshed,

S/o Late Syed Manzur Murshed,

1A, Rainey Park Lane, Kolkata-19.                                                                    ---------- Complainant

---Versus---

1)                   ICICI Prudential Life Insurance Co.

Vinod Silk Mills Compound, Chakravarthy Ashok Road,

Ashok Nagar, Kandivali (E), Mumbai-400101.                                                      ---------- Opposite Party

Present :           Sri Sankar Nath Das, President.                                                        

                        Smt. Sharmi Basu ,Member

Order No.   30    Dated  24/01/2013.

            The complaint has filed by complainant for a deficiency in service in dealing with policy no.10256227 against the said company having reference in his memorandum dt.23.11.09 submitted to the Consumer Affairs Deptt. Govt. of West Bengal containing in CC No.163 of 20120 which has been annexed here in the petition of complaint as annex-1. The specific allegation of the complainant is that original signature of his son in policy of the son bearing no.00560097 and all the signatures in the policy no. 10256116 were forged. From the record we come find that in Sept.2008 two separate representations of o.p. company viz. Amit Chakraborty and Kuntal Sarkar approached the complainant with the proposition that the money invested by his son Meher Murshed in policy no.00560097 had declined in value and they would transfer it to a lucrative fund and the complainant asked them to go ahead and said personnel asked for a cheque of Rs.7 lakhs made out in favour of the company saying that this sum would be reimbursed to the complainant in full and complainant gave cheque of Rs.7 lakhs.

            Further case of the complainant is that neither the complainant nor his son who lives and works in Dubai, UAE signed any kind of paper and the said cheque was presented to the bank on 27.10.08 and o.p. collected the money, but no correspondences were made on behalf of o.ps. to the complainant or to his son and subsequently o.p. sent a cheque in favour of the son of the complainant for Rs.7 lakhs and one Smt. Hajra said that it was not the practice of the company to pay profit of the policies issued on the basis of forgery and finally Rs.7 lakhs was refunded to the son of the complainant without any request by  the son of the complainant and this act on the part of o.p. speaks of profuse deficiency in service and carrying on unfair trade practice and o.p. did not pay any interest for the said sum of Rs.7 lakhs to the complainant or his son. Hence the case was filed by complainant with the prayer contained in the petition of complaint.

            O.ps. had entered their appearance in this case by filing w/v and denied all the material allegations labeled against them and prayed for dismissal of the case. Ld. lawyer of o.ps. in the course of argument submitted that the case has got no merit at all and allegations labeled against them  are baseless and the instant case is liable to be dismissed inlimini.

Decision with reasons:

            We have gone through the pleadings of the parties, evidence and documents in particular. It is seen from the record that the officials of o.p. company approached the complainant for a policy no.00560097 and complainant gave a chqeue of Rs.7 lakhs for the same and the fact remains that neither the complainant nor his son who resides at Dubai put any signature on any paper whatsoever and on being approached several occasions o.p. company refunded Rs.7 lakhs and they did not pay any interest for the said sum which accrued in favour of the son of the complainant. we further on perusal of the entire materials on record that the o.ps. have been running unfair trade practice by forging signatures in new policy and this act on the part of o.ps. amounts to profuse deficiency in service and further amounts to invoking the provisions of section 420 IPC but this Forum is not competent to comment in Criminal Law.

            Be that as it may on perusal of the entire materials on record we find profuse deficiency on the part of o.ps.  being service provider to its consumer / complainant and complainant is entitled to relief.

            Hence, ordered,

            That the case is allowed contest against the o.ps. with cost of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand) only. O.ps. are jointly and/or severally directed to pay interest @ 12% over the sum of Rs.7 lakhs from the date of deposit with o.ps. till the date of realization and litigation cost of Rs.5000/- (Rupees five thousand) only. O.ps. are directed to comply the aforesaid order within 45 days from the date of communication of this order, i.d. an interest @ 9% shall accrue over the entire sum due to the credit of the complainant till full realization.

            Complainant is at liberty to file execution case before this Forum in case of non execution of the aforesaid order in its entirety within the stipulated period under the provision of COPRA, 1986.

            Supply certified copy of this order to the parties free of cost.