Punjab

StateCommission

FA/13/142

Mangal Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Kotak Mahindra - Opp.Party(s)

Ashok Giri

24 Jul 2015

ORDER

                                                               FIRST ADDITIONAL BENCH

 

STATE  CONSUMER  DISPUTES  REDRESSAL COMMISSION,                                                PUNJAB

          SECTOR 37-A, DAKSHIN MARG, CHANDIGARH.

                                     

                   First Appeal No.142 of 2013

 

 

                                                          Date of Institution: 11.02.2013                                                             Date of Decision : 24.07.2015

 

 

Mangal Singh son of Vir Singh resident of H.No.43, Panch Rattan Colony, PO PAP Lines, Jalandhar.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            …..Appellant/Complainant

         

                                      Versus

 

1.       Kotak Mahindra Old Mutual Life Insurance Limited, Regd. Office,         9th Floor, Godrej Colseum, Behind Everard Nagar, Sion (East)          Mumbai 400 022 through its Chairman cum Managing Director.

2.       The Branch Manager, Kotak Mahindra Old Mutual Life Insurance,        2nd Floor, Arora Prime Towers, Above HDFC Bank Ltd., G.T Road, Jalandhar.

3.       Gupreet Singh Agent, C/o Kotak Mahindra Old Mutual Life         Insurance , 2nd Floor, Arora Prime Towers, Above HDFC Bank Ltd.,        G.T Road, Jalandhar.

                                                          … Respondents/Opposite Parties.

 

 

First Appeal against order dated 24.12.2012 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Jalandhar

Quorum:-

 

          Shri J. S. Klar, Presiding Judicial Member.

          Shri. Harcharan Singh Guram, Member

 

Present:-

 

          For the appellant                        : Sh.Ashok Giri, Advocate  

          For the respondents no.1 & 2     : Sh. Mrigank Sharma, Advocate

          For the respondent no.3            : Ex-parte.

 

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

 

J.S KLAR, PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER :-

         

          The appellant of this appeal (the complainant in the complaint) has directed this appeal against the respondents of this appeal (the opposite parties in the complaint), challenging order dated 24.12.2012 of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum Jalandhar, dismissing the complaint of the complainant. The instant appeal has been preferred against the same by the complainant now appellant in this appeal.

2.      The complainant Mangal Singh has filed  the complaint U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short, "the Act") against the OPs on the averments that he purchased policy Kotak Smart Advantage bearing No.UIN 107L043VO1 in the name of his wife Surinder Kaur for a assured amount of Rs.2,50,000/- on 5.5.2009 with insurance premium of Rs.25,000/- to be paid after six months for a period of three years. The complainant has alleged that he took the policy, as per assurance of OP No.3 with all benefits appended thereto. The complainant further averred that he deposited all the due premiums on due dates. The policy was to be matured on 04.05.2012 after three years from the date of purchase of the said policy. The complainant contacted OP No.2 and 3 at Jalandhar and requested them to pay the amount of the policy with all consequential benefits thereto. OP No.1 and 2 declined to pay the same stating that policy was for a period for 15 years and not for 3 years. The complainant has pleaded that policy for 3 years period only and after expiry of 3 years period from the date of purchase of the policy, he was entitled to the proceeds of the policy with all benefits, as detailed in the brochure. The complainant further alleged that he is not interested in continuing with the said policy for 15 years. He is entitled to refund of the premium amount with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of deposit of the premium till final realization and also prayed for refund of the premium amount of  Rs.1,50,000/-.

3.      The OPs appeared and filed written reply and contested the complaint of the complainant. The OPs controverted the averments of the complainant that policy was for three years period. It was specifically pleaded by OPs that it was for 15 years period. The version of the complainant is stated to be an afterthought one and OPs, thus, prayed for dismissal of the present complaint.

4.      The complainant tendered in evidence the affidavit of Mangal Singh Complainant Ex.CW-1/A along with copies of documents Ex.C-1 to C-6. As against it, OPs tendered in evidence affidavit of J. Jaikumar Associate Vice President Legal at Kotak Mahindra Old Mutual Life Insurance Limited Ex.OP-A along with copies of documents Ex.OP-1 to Ex.OP-4. On conclusion of evidence and arguments, the District Forum, Jalandhar, dismissed the complaint of the complainant by virtue of order dated 24.12.2012. Dissatisfied with the order of the District Forum Jalandhar dated  24.12.2012, the complainant now appellant has preferred this appeal against the same.   

5.      We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also examined the record of the case, as respondent no.3 is ex-parte in this appeal.

6.      The only point for adjudication in this appeal before us is whether complainant now appellant booked the policy for three years period and hence was entitled to receive the entire proceeds with benefits attached thereto. On the other hand, the plea of the OPs is that policy was actually for 15 years period and not for 3 years period, as alleged by complainant. The complainant has pleaded in the complainant that OPs assured him to give the benefits and, thus, he obtained the policy on that basis. The affidavit of complainant is on the record, vide Ex.CW-1/A. He has proved the policy Ex.C-1 and deposit of the premiums, vide Ex.C-2 to Ex.C-6. He stated that policy was for three years period and he was entitled to proceeds after three years with  12% interest thereupon. On the other hand, submission of the OPs, as contained in affidavit Ex.OP-A of J.Jaikumar, Associate Vice President Legal at Kotak Mahindra Old Mutual Life Insurance Ltd/OP that pleadings of the OPs are correct. From perusal of the policy documents, we find that policy is, in fact, for 15 years term and not for 3 years period. It is for the complainant to prove fraud in taking his signatures thereupon on the part of OP. We find that he who pleads fraud must establish it . The complainant Mangal Singh sings in English and we can infer therefrom that he is an educated person, it is not believable that he signed the documents without understanding them. The Apex Court has also held in M/s Grasim Industries Ltd  & Anr… versus  M/s Aggarwal Steel reported in 2010(1) SCC Page 33 that when a person signs a document, there is a presumption, unless there is proof of force or fraud, that he has read the document properly and understood it and only then he has affixed his signatures thereon, otherwise, no signature on a document can ever be accepted."

7.      The ratio of the citied authority is fully applicable to the facts of the present case. Undoubtedly, proposal form is  signed by Surinder Kaur, her affidavit has not been tendered by the complainant on the record, as observed by District Forum to prove any fraud or misrepresentation  in this case in obtaining her signatures on it. She has neither been impleaded, as a party in this complaint nor there is any such affidavit of Surinder Kaur to this effect on the record. The District Forum rightly came to the conclusion that the complainant could not prove it on the record that policy was taken for a period of 3 years period instead of 15 years period. The affidavit of Surinder Kaur should have been placed on the record to substantiate this version of the complainant. She has neither been impleaded, as a party in this case nor there is any affidavit on her part to prove it and hence adverse inference is drawn against complainant on this score.

8.      Consequently, we hold that District Forum Jalandhar rightly dismissed the complaint of the complainant by relying upon law laid down by the Apex Court in M/s Grasim Industries Ltd  & Anr… versus  M/s Aggarwal Steel (supra).

9.      As a result of our above discussion, we find that there is no merit in the appeal and as such the appeal of the appellant is hereby dismissed with the above-referred observations.

10.    Arguments in this appeal were heard on 22.07.2015 and the order was reserved. Copies of the order be communicated to the parties as per rules.

11.    The appeal could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of court cases.

 

                                                                          (J. S. KLAR)

                                                             PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER

                       

                                                         

                                                          (HARCHARAN SINGH GURAM)

                                                                             MEMBER

 

July 24, 2015.                                                                

(ravi)