DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II

U.T. CHANDIGARH

[Complaint Case No: 561 of 2011]

1.       R.S. Bhasin r/o H.No.1010, Sector 38-B, Chandigarh.

2.       Santosh Bhasin w/o R.S. Bhasin resident of H.No.1010, Sector 38-B, Chandigarh.

                                                                   ---Complainants.

Versus

1.                 Kotak Mahindra Old Mutual Life Insurance Ltd., through its Director, Regn.No.107, Regd. Office Kotak Mahindra Old Mutual Life Insurance Ltd., 9^th Floor Godrej Coliseum, Behind Everard Nagar Sion (East) Mumbai 400022

2.                 Kotak Mahindra Old Mutual Life Insurance Ltd., through its Branch Manager, SCO No.141-142, Second Floor, Sector 9-C, Chandigarh 160009

3.                 Kotak Mahindra Old Mutual Life Insurance Ltd., through its Manager, SCO No.5, Top Floor, Sector 34-C, Chandigarh.

---Opposite Parties.

BEFORE:  SHRI LAKSHMAN SHARMA                 PRESIDENT

                   SMT. MADHU MUTNEJA                       MEMBER

                   SHRI JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU       MEMBER

Argued by: Sh. N.S. Jagdeva, Advocate for the complainants.

                   Sh. Gaurav Bhardwaj, Advocate for the OPs.

PER LAKSHMAN SHARMA, PRESIDENT

1.                           Sh. R.S. Bhasin and Smt. Santosh Bhasin, complainants, have filed this complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 praying for the following reliefs :-

i)                   The OPs may kindly be directed to refund Rs.3,50,000/- (2,00,000 + 1,50,000) alongwith 18% interest.

ii)                The OPs be directed to pay compensation of Rs.50,000/- on account of deficiency in service, harassment and mental agony.

iii)              The OPs be directed to pay Rs.11,000/- as litigation costs.

2.                           In brief, the case of the complainants is that one Sh. Vikram Sharma, an official/agent of the opposite parties approached them and advised them to invest their money in Kotak Super Advantage Plan.  He represented that if they invested a sum of Rs.36,000/- per year for a continuous period of three years, their investment would grow to Rs.1,65,326/- after three years.   He also assured that the investment would be having a guaranteed return of 15% per annum and they would be entitled to withdraw the amount after 4^th/5^th year.  They were also told that there would be 100% investment of the fund of the complainants as a result of which their amount would grow by reinvesting the matured amount. He showed a chart (C-1) to the complainants in order to explain the growth of the amount.  According to the complainants, they believed the representations made by the aforesaid Sh. Vikram Sharma. It has further been pleaded that the said official/agent got their signatures on some blank forms without disclosing anything to them.  According to the complainants, to their utter surprise they received the following insurance policies (C-3 to C-6) in the name of the nominees instead of investment plan certificates, as detailed in para 4 of the complaint:-

According to the complainants, on having received the said policies, they contacted the aforesaid Sh. Vikram Sharma who told them that the insurance policies were only additional benefits for which the complainants would not have to pay any premium and that the investments are as per the product earlier explained. According to the complainants had the said official given an iota of indication that the investments being made by them were for purchase of insurance policies, they would not have invested their money at all.  The policies are for 20 years having annual premium of Rs.50,000/- each.  According to the complainants, they are senior citizens and they are not expected to live for the period these policies had been issued.  Thus, according to the complainants, they were forced to make investment by misrepresentation of facts by the aforesaid official. It has also been pleaded that they approached the opposite parties a number of times for refund of the amount as they were not interested to invest the amount in the said policies.  It has further been pleaded that without the knowledge of the complainants, three premiums were deducted through ECS despite the fact that the complainants had not given any specific permission for it.  However, according to the complainants, it appears that their signatures had been obtained fraudulently on some papers authorizing the opposite parties to deduct the premium through ECS. 

                   Thus, according to the complainants, the act of the opposite parties in not refunding the amount deposited by the complainants, amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.  In these circumstances the present complaint has been filed seeking the reliefs mentioned above.

3.                           Notice of the complaint was given to the opposite parties.  Sh. Gaurav Bhardwaj, Advocate put in appearance on behalf of the opposite parties on 24.1.2012. Thereafter the case was fixed six times for filing written statement and placing evidence on record by the opposite parties, but they failed to do so despite the fact that costs were also imposed upon them.  In these circumstances, vide order dated 12.6.2012, defence of the opposite parties was struck off.

4.                           We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the documents on record.

5.                           There is no rebuttal of the fact that a representation was made by the official of the opposite parties to the complainants that the amount paid by them would be utilised in the Kotak Smart Advantage Plan (C-1) and that there will be a guaranteed return of 15% on the said amount.   Furthermore, there is no rebuttal of the fact that the amount paid by the complainants was used as premium for the issuance of policies (C-3 to C-6) without their consent and permission. There is also no rebuttal of the fact that the signatures of the complainants were obtained on blank forms/printed papers without explaining their contents to them.  On the other hand, the complainants have pleaded that they approached the opposite parties and specifically told them that they had not paid the amount for purchasing the said polices and, therefore, sought refund of the amount as their amount was not invested in the plan for which it was paid.

6.                           Investment of the amounts in some policies instead of the plan for which it was paid by the complainants certainly amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties.  In these circumstances the complainants are entitled to refund of the amount paid by them.

7.                           In view of the above findings, this complaint is allowed and the opposite parties are directed to -

(i)                refund the amount of Rs.3,50,000/- to the complainants;

 (ii)    pay Rs.50,000/- to the complainants as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment to them;

(iii)   pay Rs.7,000/- as costs of litigation.

8.                           This order be complied with by the opposite parties, jointly and severally, within 45 days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which the amounts at Sr.No.(i) and (ii) above shall carry interest @18% per annum from the date of order till actual payment to the complainant, besides payment of litigation costs.

9.                           Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room.

Announced

13.07.2012.

Sd/-

 (LAKSHMAN SHARMA)

PRESIDENT

Sd/-

 (MADHU MUTNEJA)

MEMBER

Sd/-

(JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU)

MEMBER

hg