CC Filed on 02.11.2010
Disposed on 28.06.2011
BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KOLAR.
Dated: 28th day of June 2011
PRESENT:
Sri. G.V.HEGDE, President.
Sri. T.NAGARAJA, Member.
Smt. K.G.SHANTALA, Member.
---
Consumer Complaint No. 224/2010
Between:
Sri. K.M. Ramachandrappa, S/o. Muniyappa, R/o. KithanduruVillage, Thoti Post, Sugutur Hobli, Kolar Taluk and District. V/S 1. Indian Infoline Insurance Corporate Agent for ICICI Prudential, Ground Floor, Gokul Complex, Opp. Srinivasa Nursing Home, Beside Kaveri Motor, Kolar. 2. ICICI Office, A.C.R.Tower, 1st Floor, No.32, Residency Road, Bangalore. 3. ICICI Prudential Life Insurance Company, ICICIPru-LifeTower, 1089, Appasaheb Marathe Marg, Prabhadevi, Mumbai – 400 025. (By Advocate for OP.2 & 3 Sri. L. Nagaraja) | ….Complainant ….Opposite Parties |
| |
ORDERS
This is a complaint filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 praying for a direction against the opposite parties to pay Rs.2,00,000/- in all with costs and interest, etc.,
2. The material facts of complainant’s case may be stated as follows:
The complainant has presented and prosecuted the complaint in person. It is alleged in the complaint that OP.1 called the complainant about 7-8 times on 01.07.2007 through the landline phone No. 247190 informing that the complainant had won Rs.1,00,000/- in a free lottery and requested the complainant and his wife to come over and collect the same at OP.1 address. Believing it to be true by 3 p.m. on the same day, the complainant went with his wife to office of OP No.1. By that time 7-8 couples were waiting at OP.1’s office. In the course of interview OP.1 informed the complainant that if Rs.50,000/- was deposited in ICICI Infoline Insurance, complainant would get Rs.1,50,000/- after 3 years and that this offer was limited for a few couples and lured the complainant to accept that offer. However the complainant sought 15 days time to deposit the same. In the meanwhile the complainant borrowed Rs.50,000/- on interest from individual and deposited the same with OP.1 through cheque on 16.07.2007. The OP.1 after 5-6 days sent Bond No. 5741519 as ‘Invest Shiled Cash Bak’. Though the OP.1 had assured the complainant that he would get thrice the amount after 3 years, complainant was shocked to find cheque sent by OP.1 for Rs.6,544/- instead of the assured sum of Rs.1,50,000/- on 20.10.2010. He presented the same for collection under the belief that he would receive further payments from OPs. Even the said cheque was dishonoured on the ground that OP.1 had closed Bank account. The complainant got confirmed that he had been cheated by OP.1 and sought for the assured amount of Rs.1,50,000/- from OPs.
3. This Forum on perusal of the complaint registered the same and issued notices to the OPs. Inspite of service of notice on OP.1 against whom all the allegations are made remained ex-parte. OP.2 and 3 appeared through their Counsel and filed their version. The OP.2 and 3 although opposed the complaint on technical grounds, never denied specifically about calling of the complainant by OP.1 over his land line phone 7-8 times on a single day and informing him about he having won Rs.1,00,000/- in Free Lottery and assuring payment of Rs.1,50,000/- after 3 years in case he pays Rs.50,000/- at that moment. OP.2 and 3 further contended that complainant had agreed to pay Rs.50,000/- as annual premium for 15 years and further contended that as per clause 9 of the policy if premium is not paid continuously for 3 years, the policy shall be foreclosed. They further contended at para.9 of the version that the sum assured is Rs.3,75,000/- and the premium payable is Rs.50,000/- p.a. and that the complainant has paid premium for only one year and therefore sought for dismissal of the complaint.
4. The complainant in support of his case filed affidavit and produced documents.
5. OP.2 and 3 filed version but did not file affidavit by way of evidence and also did not produce documents. On perusal of the averments of the parties, documents produced and evidence of the complainant, the points that arise for determination are:
Point No.1: Whether there is deficiency in service on the part
of the OPs?
Point No.2: Whether the complainant is entitled for the reliefs
sought for?
Point No.3: If point No.2 is in Affirmative then what quantum?
6. On perusal of the policy issued by the OPs to the complainant, the benefit amount is Rs.3,75,000/-, premium payable is Rs.50,000/- p.a., date of commencement of policy is 19.07.2007, premium paying term is 15 years and maturity date is 19.07.2022. On closer look at the policy it is a bogus policy because if a person pays Rs.50,000/- p.a. for 15 years as premium the total amount would be 7.5 lakhs and there will be bonus on this payment which would normally be double this amount i.e. more than Rs.15,00,000/- and not Rs.3,75,000/- as shown in the policy. The case of the complainant is that OP.1 informed him about winning of Rs.1,00,000/- in a lottery and asked him to pay Rs.50,000/- at once and he would receive Rs.1.5 lakhs after expiry of 3 years, appears to be acceptable, as there is no denial by OPs of these facts by OPs. All the allegations are made against OP.1, but he remained ex-parte. OP.1 sent cheque for only Rs.6,544/- to the complainant in return for the amount of Rs.50,000/- received 3 years ago. The complainant could not realize even the meagre amount of Rs.6,544/- as the cheque had bounced. The OP.1 had intentionally closed the Bank account. This shows there is deficiency in service. The complainant being a Teacher is lured by attractive offer by OP.1. He invested Rs.50,000/- through some effort and the said amount is with the OP.1 for the last 3 years. Informing about the lottery to the complainant is not denied by other OPs. The OPs have followed unfair trade practice and policy in order to make unlawful gains. From the letter heads of OP.3 it is very clear that OP.3 is the principal and other OPs are its agents or franchises. Therefore all the OPs are liable to pay the amount to the complainant. Hence we pass the following:
O R D E R
The complaint is allowed with costs of Rs.1,000/-. The OP.1 to 3 shall jointly and severally pay Rs.1,50,000/- (rupees one lakh fifty thousand only) to the complainant together with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from 20.07.2010 till the date of payment, within 6 weeks from the date of this order.
Dictated to the Stenographer, corrected and pronounced in open Forum this the 28th day of June 2011.
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
