BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SIRSA.
Consumer Complaint no. 129 of 2018
Date of Institution : 13.4.2018
Date of Decision : 22.2.2019.
Soma Devi wife of Shri Angrej Kumar, resident of Ward No.5, near Police Post, Ellenabad, District Sirsa.
……Complainant.
Versus.
1. KIM INFRASTRUCTURE & DEVELOPERS LIMITED Regd. & Corp. Office 1311 Hemkunt House & 6 Rajendra Place, New Delhi- 11008.
2. Dalip Sinhmar Agent resident of village Dholpalia, Tehsil Ellenabad, District Sirsa.
...…Opposite parties.
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986.
Before: SH. R.L.AHUJA…………………………PRESIDENT
SH. ISSAM SINGH SAGWAL ……… MEMBER.
Present: Sh. Rajender Kumar representative/ brother of complainant in person for complainant.
Opposite parties exparte.
ORDER
The case of the complainant in brief is that complainant deposited monthly installments of Rs.200/- each with opposite party no.1 i.e. an insurance company on the asking of agent Dalip Sinhmar i.e. op no.2 from 9.6.2012 and she has deposited 60 installments. It is further averred that she deposited total amount of Rs.12,000/- in five years with the company and she was to receive insurance amount of Rs.17,000/- from the above said company which she has not received so far. It is further averred that office of above said company was in Huda complex at first floor in SCO No.154, old bus stand, Sirsa which is not now there. That she has deposited all the requisite documents to the company and she was to receive the said amount on 8.6.2017 and the abovesaid company has received the documents but she has not been paid the insurance amount by the company. It is further averred that she was not knowing about the company and she get insurance at the asking of agent i.e. op no.2 and now as and when telephonic call is made to agent Dalipo he did not receive the same nor he meets to her. That she does the work of labour and deposited the installments with the company very hardly. It is further averred that both the ops have caused huge financial loss to her and have caused mental harassment to her. Hence, this complaint.
2. On notice, opposite party no.1 did not appear and was proceeded against exparte.
3. Initially opposite party no.2 appeared in person and filed reply to the effect that he did not get any policy issued from the company for Soma Devi and he has no knowledge about depositing of installments with the above said company by complainant and he has also no knowledge of insurance amount to be received by Soma Devi. It is further submitted that it is pertinent to mention here that op no.2 himself has deposited amount with the aforesaid company and till date he has not received any profit of his policies. It is further submitted that earlier the office of the company was in Huda complex but now the office of the company has been closed and a case has been registered against the company which is pending in the Court. He has no knowledge of the facts of the case that as to when and what amount was to be paid by the company to the complainant. OP no.2 is not the agent of above said company rather op no.2 himself has deposited the amount with the company. It is further submitted that complainant is not entitled to receive any amount from op no.2 and if any amount of Soma Devi is deposited with the company then she is liable to receive the same from the company.
3. The complainant produced her affidavit Ex.CW1/A and documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C19. When the case was fixed for evidence of complainant, none appeared on behalf of op no.2 and ultimately he was proceeded against exparte on 20.2.2019.
4. We have heard representative of complainant and have perused the case file carefully.
5. The complainant in order to prove her complaint has furnished her affidavit Ex.CW1/A wherein she has reiterated all the averments made in her complaint. She has also tendered copy of receipt cum unit certificate issued by op no.1 Ex.C1, copy of agent card of Dalip Singhmar i.e. op no.2 Ex.C2, copy of receipt of agreement Ex.C3, copies of receipts of Rs.200/- Ex.C4 to Ex.C18 and postal receipts Ex.C19. The evidence led by complainant goes as unchallenged and unrebutted as op no.1 opted to be proceeded against exparte whereas op no.2 did not lead any evidence in support of his averments made in the reply and after filing reply he also opted to be proceeded against exparte. So, it is proved on record that Smt. Soma Devi complainant opened an account with op no.1 on the asking of op no.2 and she had paid Rs.12,000/- in 60 monthly installments of Rs.200/- each and maturity value of the deposit was Rs.16,800/- which has not been paid to her despite her requests and best efforts which clearly amounts to deficiency in service on the part of ops.
6. In view of the above, we allow the present complaint and direct the opposite parties to pay maturity value of the deposit i.e. Rs.16,800/- alongwith interest @9% per annum from the date of maturity till actual realization to the complainant within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. We also direct the ops to further pay a sum of Rs.5000/- as compensation including litigation expenses to the complainant. Both the ops are jointly and severally liable to comply with this order, failing which the complainant will be at liberty to initiate proceedings under Sections 25/27 of the Act against the ops. A copy of this order be supplied to the parties as per rules. File be consigned to the record room.
Announced in open Forum. President,
Dated:22.2.2019. Member District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Sirsa.
