Order by:
Sh.Amrinder Singh Sidhu, President
1. This Consumer Complaint has been received by transfer vide order dated 26.11.2021 of Hon’ble President, State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab at Chandigarh under section 48 of CPA Act, vide letter No.04/22/2021/4 C.P.A/38 dated 17.1.2022 from District Consumer Commission, Ludhiana to District Consumer Commission, Moga to decide the same in Camp Court at Ludhiana and said order was ordered to be affected from 14th March, 2022.
2. The complainant has filed the instant complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (now section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019) on the allegations that the complainant was having saving bank account with the Opposite Party bank bearing No.42820 and Opposite Party No.2 by misrepresenting and misguiding the complainant, had sold a policy bearing No. 4000666016 in the month of March, 2014 without explaining any such terms and conditions of the policy and at the time of selling the policy in question, the complainant was told by Opposite Party No.2 that the amount deposited by the complainant will be doubled after the end of fifth year and further told that in case the complainant needs money, then he can withdraw the policy amount after the end of third year and in that event, the complainant would get good return on the deposited amount. But after the completion of the three years of the policy in question, the complainant was shocked and surprised when he checked his fund value in the said policy which almost remained half of the deposited amount. Thereafter, the complainant approached the Opposite Parties time and again to return his deposited amount alongwith interest, but the Opposite Parties did not pay any heed to the request of the complainant and are rather lingering on the matter on one pretext or another and as such, there is deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties. Vide instant complaint, the complainant has sought the following reliefs.
a) The Opposite Parties may be directed to pay Rs.2 lakhs alongwith his amount of Rs.1,50,000/- so deposited by him with the Opposite Parties on account of compensation for mental agony and harassment suffered by the complainant or any other relief to which this District Consumer Commission complainant may deem fit be also granted.
3. Opposite Parties appeared through counsel and contested the complaint by filing the written version taking preliminary objections therein inter alia that the complaint filed by the complainant is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed as the complainant has attempted to misguide and mislead this District Consumer Commission. It is submitted that the complainant is bad for non joinder of necessary parties because the IDBI Federal Life Insurance Company Limited is a necessary and proper party to the present complaint as the main allegations of the complainant pertain to the policy issued by the said company and not by the Opposite Parties bank. Moreover, no cause of action arose to the complainant against the Opposite Parties bank. The complainant is guilty of making wrong allegations against the Opposite Parties in as much as the Opposite Party No.1 has acted as the corporate agent of the IDBI Federal Life Insurance Company Limited and had only processed the application of the complainant which had been forwarded to the IDBI Federal Life Insurance Company Limited for the issuance of the policy. After the issuance of the policy, a separate and distinct contact has been entered into in between the complainant and the insurance company and as such, the respective rights and liabilities of the complainant and the IDBI Federal Life Insurance Company Limited are governed by the contract of insurance that has been entered into in between them. If at all thee is any dispute relating to the terms and conditions of the policy then the said dispute is also to be resolved inter se in between the complainant and the Insurance Company as per the terms of the policy and the Opposite Parties have absolutely no role to play in the resolution of the dispute, if any. In fact, the complainant himself handed over the original policy documents to the bank and requested that if the bank can provide any help in getting the amount refunded and the Opposite Parties clearly told the complainant that the refund of any amount is beyond the domain of the bank and that the complainant should approach the Insurance Company in case of any grievance. However, in order to mitigate the grievances, if any, of the complainant and considering the fact that he is an accountholder in the bank and in order to provide customer friendly services, the original policy was received by the bank. However, as the bank was not in a position to extend any help to the complainant so the original policy documents were returned to the complainant but the complainant intentionally and knowingly did not receive the said documents in order to create a false evidence against the Opposite Parties. Therefore, the act and conduct of the complainant is such which disentitles him from getting any relief from this District Consumer Commission and hence, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties. On merits, Opposite Parties took up the same and similar pleas as taken up by them in the preliminary objections. Hence, the instant complaint is not maintainable and the same may be dismissed with costs.
4. In order to prove his case, the complainant has tendered into evidence the affidavit Ex.CA alongwith copies of documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C9 and closed his evidence.
5. On the other hand, to rebut the evidence of the complainant, Opposite Parties also tendered into evidence the affidavit Ex.RW1/A alongwith copies of documents Ex.R1 to Ex.R15 and closed their respective evidence.
6. We have heard the ld.counsel for the parties, perused the written submissions filed by Opposite Parties and also gone through the documents placed on record.
7. Ld.counsel for the Complainant as well as ld.counsel for the Opposite Parties have mainly reiterated the facts as narrated in the complaint as well as in their written statements respectively. We have perused the rival contention of the ld.counsel for the parties. The only contention of the complainant is that as and when the complainant has come to know that the Opposite Parties have sold him the wrong policy by showing him green pasters, then he applied with the Opposite Party for the cancellation of the policy in question and also requested to refund the paid up amount alongwith interest, but the Opposite Party refused to admit the rightful claim of the complainant. On the other hand, ld.counsel for the Opposite Party has repelled the aforesaid contention of the ld.counsel for the complainant on the ground that the complainant is bad for non joinder of necessary parties because the IDBI Federal Life Insurance Company Limited is a necessary and proper party to the present complaint as the main allegations of the complainant pertain to the policy issued by the said company and not by the Opposite Parties bank. Moreover, no cause of action arose to the complainant against the Opposite Parties bank. The complainant is guilty of making wrong allegations against the Opposite Parties in as much as the Opposite Party No.1 has acted as the corporate agent of the IDBI Federal Life Insurance Company Limited and had only processed the application of the complainant which had been forwarded to the IDBI Federal Life Insurance Company Limited for the issuance of the policy. After the issuance of the policy, a separate and distinct contact has been entered into in between the complainant and the insurance company and as such, the respective rights and liabilities of the complainant and the IDBI Federal Life Insurance Company Limited are governed by the contract of insurance that has been entered into in between them. If at all thee is any dispute relating to the terms and conditions of the policy then the said dispute is also to be resolved inter se in between the complainant and the Insurance Company as per the terms of the policy and the Opposite Parties have absolutely no role to play in the resolution of the dispute, if any. In fact, the complainant himself handed over the original policy documents to the bank and requested that if the bank can provide any help in getting the amount refunded and the Opposite Parties clearly told the complainant that the refund of any amount is beyond the domain of the bank and that the complainant should approach the Insurance Company in case of any grievance.
8. Perusal of the policy document Ex.C1 produced by the complainant himself it clearly proves that the policy in question has been issued by IDBI Federal Life Insurance Company Limited, but against the said insurance company, the complainant has not lodged any claim for the redressal of his grievances of any, rather chose to file the complaint against wrong Opposite Parties i.e. IDBI Bank Limited and said IDBI Limited has nothing to do with any alleged grievance of the complainant, if any. Hence, we are of the view that the complainant has no locus standi to file the complaint with regard to policy in question against the Opposite Parties.
9. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, we find no deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties-Bank and hence, the instant complaint against the Opposite Parties- Bank stands dismissed. However, the complainant is at liberty to get redressal of his grievance by lodging his claim with regard to the policy in question, if he so desires, against the proper party i.e. IDBI Federal Life Insurance Company Limited, in accordance with law, for which the time spent before this District Commission shall stand excluded under Section 14 of the Limitation Act in the light of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case titled 'Lakshmi Engineering Works vs PSG Industrial Institute reported in 1995(3) SCC 583'. Keeping in view the peculiar circumstances of the case, the parties are left to bear their own costs. Copies of the order be furnished to the parties free of cost by District Consumer Commission, Ludhiana and thereafter, the file be consigned to record room after compliance.
10. Reason for delay in deciding the complaint.
This Consumer Complaint was originally filed at District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (Now Commission) at Ludhiana and it keep pending over there until Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab vide letter No.04/22/2021/4 C.P.A/38 dated 17.1.2022 has transferred the instant Consumer Complaint alongwith Other Complaints to District Consumer Commission, Moga with directions to work on this file onward from 14th March, 2022 and accordingly District Consumer Commission, Moga has decided the present complaint at Camp Court, Ludhiana, as early as possible as it could decide the same
Announced in Open Commission at Camp Court, Ludhiana.
