Punjab

Sangrur

CC/552/2014

Jasvir Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Klub Vacanza - Opp.Party(s)

Shri Ritesh Jindal

20 May 2015

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR.

                                                               

 

                                                Complaint No.    552

                                                Instituted on:      18.09.2014

                                                Decided on:       20.05.2015

 

Jasvir Kaur wife of Late Shri Itbar Sigh, resident of H.No.36, Ward No.10, Phirni Road, Patiala Gate, Sangrur.

                                                        ..Complainant

                                        Versus

1.             Klub Vacanza, A unit of Vacanza International Pvt. Limited, F-13, 2^nd Floor, Sector -6, Noida (UP), through its Manager.

2.             Manjit Singh, resident of H.No.1755, Street No.4, Vishavkaram Nagar, Tajpur Road, Ludhiana.

3.             Asha Verma, resident of Phase-13, 2^nd Floor, Sector 6, Noida (UP).

                                                        ..Opposite parties

 

 

For the complainant    :       Shri G.S.Shergill, Adv.

For OPs                    :       Shri Ramandeep Singh, Adv.

 

 

Quorum:    Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

                K.C.Sharma, Member

                Sarita Garg, Member

 

 

 

Order by : Sukhpal Singh Gill, President.

 

1.             Smt. Jasvir Kaur,  complainant (referred to as complainant in short) has preferred the present complaint against the opposite parties (referred to as OPs in short) on the ground that in the month of September 2013, the complainant received a phone call from the OPs number 2 and 3 and offered the complainant for lucrative returns against the investments. Accordingly, OPs number 2 and 3 visited the house of the complainant and told her that the amount invested in the investment  will double after a period of three years, as such the complainant issued six blank cheques to the OPs number 2 and 3 and OPs number 2 and 3 also got signed on blank printed performa without disclosing its contents.  It is further averred that after some times, the complainant came to know that OPs number 2 and 3 have withdrawn Rs.4,00,000/- from the account of the complainant in the name of different companies i.e. a) Reliance Life Insurance Company Limited Rs.29,900/-, ii) DHFL Pramercia Life Insurance company Limited Rs.99,999/-, iii) Bharti AXA Life Insurance Company Limited Rs.99,999/- and iv) Klub Vacanza Rs.1,70,000/-. After coming to know about the investments, the complainant called the OP number 3, who told that invested amount would give good returns. It is further stated that the complainant had kept the money for the education of her children. The complainant requested the OP number 3 to refund the amount, but it did not hear the request of the complainant.  Thereafter the complainant also moved an application dated 17.6.2014 to SSP Sangrur for taking action against OPs number 2 and 3 and during inquiry OP number 2 appeared and disclosed that the amount of Rs.1,70,000/- has been invested in the Klub Vacanza Holiday Package i.e. OP number 1. It is further stated that OPs number 2 and 3 with malafide intention and with ulterior motive  grabbed the amount of Rs.1,70,000/- of the complainant. It is further averred that the OP number 3 did not refund the amount to the complainant despite serving of legal notice dated 17.7.2014.  Thus, alleging  deficiency in service on the part of the OPs, the complainant has prayed that the OPs be directed to pay to the complainant the amount of Rs.1,70,000/- along with interest @ 18% per annum and further claimed compensation and litigation expenses.

 

2.             In reply filed by OPs,  preliminary objections are taken up on the grounds that the complainant has no cause of action, that the complaint is not maintainable and that the complainant has filed the complaint with malafide intention to harass the OPs.  On merits,  it is admitted that for selling the membership of OP number 3, OP number 1 called up for interested customers for getting their details and requisite documents. It is stated that the complainant bought three memberships of Klub Vacanza from OP number 1 i.e. a) platinum plan on 28.09.2013 for Rs.74,999/- in the name of Ms. Jasvir Kaur vide cheque number 583256 drawn on Oriental Bank of Commerce, b) Platinum Plan on 29.10.2013 for Rs.74,99/- in the name of Ms. Jasvir Kaur vide cheque number 583257 drawn on Oriental Bank of Commerce and c) Gold Plan on 29.10.2013 for Rs.19,999/- in the name of Ms. Jasvir Kaur vide cheque number 583259 drawn on Oriental Bank of Commerce. It is further admitted that the complainant being unsatisfied from the insurance policies tried to get the same cancelled and the complainant who could not get the said insurance policies cancelled approached the OPs number 1 and 3 seeking her help for getting the same cancelled and thereafter the customer service of OP number 1 called and guided the complainant for getting the same cancelled. OP number 1 retained all the conversations with the complainant.  It is further stated that thereafter in the month of July, 2014 after eight months of buying the membership, the complainant again approached Ops number 1 and 3 for getting her Club Vacanza memberships cancelled.  The OPs number 1 and 3 after considering the complainant’s case and her problems agreed to cancel two policies only after going contrary to company’s policy.  On merits, it is denied that the OP number 3 ever visited the house of the complainant. It is stated that the complainant bought the holiday packages from OP number 1 of her own free will and OP number 2 visited the house of the complainant and received the required documents for the membership of Klub Vacanza from the complainant. It is denied that OPs received six blank cheques from the complainant.  Further allegations of the complainant in the complaint have also been denied.  It is stated that the complainant was informed time and again about the benefits of the membership and that there are no extra benefits given in the membership. It is further stated that the complainant purchased the membership of OP number 3 through OP number 1 at her own free will and any deficiency in service on the part of the OPs has been denied.

 

3.             The learned counsel for the complainant has produced Ex.C-1 affidavit, Ex.C-2 copy of legal notice, Ex.C-3 copy of receipt, Ex.C-4 and Ex.C-5 copies of accounts statement, Ex.C-6 copy of notice, Ex.C-7 copy of receipt, Ex.C-8 copy of application and closed evidence. On the other hand, the learned counsel for OPs has produced Ex.OP1 affidavit along with Ex.DW1/1 to Ex.DW1/7 and closed evidence.

 

 

4.             We have very carefully perused the pleadings of the parties and heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties. In our opinion, the complaint merits acceptance, for these reasons.

 

5.             In the present case, the version of the complainant is that she was approached by the agent of OP number 1 for the investment of her money at her house and it was assured that the amount will be double in the period of three years and Ops number 1 and 3 got signed some blank papers and had also collected some cheques on the pretext that they themselves will fill up the form and name of the company for handsome gains.  The OPs had withdrawn a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- from the bank account of the complainant and on coming to know that the amount has been invested in four companies including the company of OP number 1, she moved an application to the Senior Superintendent of Police Sangrur and then OP number 1 declared the policy particulars of the investment of the policies, in which the amount was invested.  The complainant is a poor widow lady and she had kept the amount for the education of the children, though she wanted to invest the amount, but then she never opted for the poor packages as she is even not holding the passport, as such, OPs are not only deficient in service , but have also indulged into unfair trade practice. 

 

6.             On the other hand, the Ops have submitted that after receipt of the documents, OP number 1 has made a pre verification login call to verify the details of the customers and on confirmation of the customer, the cheques were encashed and the policies were issued.  Moreover, the complainant had got cancelled other three policies as per the guidance of OP number 1 and later on now the complainant again wanted to get cancelled the policies of OP number 1, which could not be cancelled as 15 days free look period for cancellation has since been lapsed.

 

7.             After hearing the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the documents placed on record, we find that the OPs have placed on record the CDs with regard to the conversation, which took place with the complainant in token of having confirmed the policies in question.  We have read the scrip exhibited on record produced by the OP with the document Ex.OP-1 and find that the complainant has simply uttered words ‘Hanji’.  In the whole conversation and at one place, the caller of OP number 1 has said that your voice is being cut and then the caller himself replied OK OK, does not matter.  So, all this leads us to believe that OP number 1 was too clever to get the consent of the complainant by referring the scheme, but there is no specific confirmation of the same by the complainant as no dialogue between too took place in the proper form in token of having understood the scheme on telephone.  Moreover, the authenticity of the conversation is also not acceptable in the absence of any proper authentication from some laboratory.  The learned counsel for the complainant has also argued that the same could be doctored and the words ‘Hanji’ could have been inserted by OP number 1 at different places and the complainant was also not aware of the fact that the call is being recorded and whether the OP number 1 would record the call illegally without her proper consent and knowledge.

 

8.             So, from the facts mentioned above, we are of the considered opinion that the conversation, which took place between the complainant and OP number 1 is not admissible in the absence of any authentication from some certified laboratory.  Further we find that the Ops have not placed on record any policy document on record.  Further  OP number 1 has not produced any record to the effect that the policy documents were despatched to the complainant and in the absence of any cogent, reliable and trustworthy evidence to this effect, the plea of the OPs is not admissible and the policy could not be cancelled within the period of 15 days, as the same was not delivered to the complainant.  But, in the reply, OP number 1 has admitted for cancellation of two of the policies of the complainant, but even the OP number 1 had not cancelled the same.  Whereas the complainant being a widow and class III employee was in no need of so many policies.

 

9.             OP number 1 has also admitted in the reply that on his guidance, the other policies have been cancelled by OPs number 2 and 3, but then we failed to understand as to what stopped him to get these three policies in question cancelled, when the same were never opted by the complainant and that too when the same were not delivered to the complainant. This also shows that OPs number 2 and 3 are the agents of OP number 1.  The learned counsel for the complainant has also cited ICICI Prudential Life Insurance Company Limited versus Preeti Prasad 2015(2) CLT 113 (NC), wherein it has been held by the Hon’ble National Commission that the appellant has miserably failed to produce on record any document to substantiate that policy document was sent to the complainant and was received by him. It is further held that there is no question of availing free look period of 15 days and the complainant cannot be bound by the terms of policy document.   In the present case also, the Ops have not produced any cogent, reliable and trustworthy evidence on record to show that the policies in question were ever delivered to the complainant, as such, we find that since the policies have not been delivered to the complainant, the question of availing free look period of 15 days by the complainant for cancellation of the policies does not arise at all.

 

10.            In the light of above circumstances, we find that the OP number 1 is not only deficient in service, but also has indulged in unfair trade practice by retaining the amount of Rs.1,70,000/- belonging to the complainant, and as such, we allow the complaint and direct OP number 1 to refund to the complainant a sum of Rs.1,70,000/- along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of complaint till realisation.  We further direct OP number 1 to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.10,000/- in lieu of compensation for mental tension, agony and litigation expenses.      

 

11.            This order of ours be complied with within a period of thirty days of its communication. A copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to records.

                Pronounced.

                May 20, 2015.

                                                        (Sukhpal Singh Gill)

                                                           President

 

 

                                                                (K.C.Sharma)

                                                                     Member

 

                                                          

                                                                (Sarita Garg)

                                                                   Member