BEFORE THE KARNATAKA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BENGALURU. (ADDL. BENCH)

DATED THIS THE 28^th DAY OF OCTOBER, 2022

PRESENT

SRI RAVI SHANKAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER

SMT. SUNITA C.BAGEWADI, LADY MEMBER

COMPLAINT NO.313/2014  

Smt.Surekha,

W/o Pradeep Kembhavi,

H No.1-867/37,

Krishna Kunj,                                                               ….Complainant

Venkatesh Nagar,

Gulbarga-585102,

Karnataka

(By Shri.A.Sivadasan, Adv.,)

                                          -Versus-

1. LIC of India,

Represented by its

Managing Director

Registered office,

Yogakshema Building, … Opposite party/s

Nariman Point,

Mumbai-400 021

2. LIC of India,

Represented by its

Zonal Manager,

CRM Department, Zonal office,

3d Floor, South Central Office,

Jeean Bhagya, Saifabad,

Hyderabad-560 063

                                                               … Opposite party/s         

3. LIC of India,

Represented by its

Divisional Manager,

Divisional office, Amruth Prakash,

Sath Kacheri Road,

PB No.43, Raichur-584 101,

Karnataka

4. LIC of India,

Represented by its Chief Manager

Mr.Prakash Bant,

LIC Building, Gulbarga Branch 1,

Jail Garden Road, P.B.No.16,

Gulbarga-585 101, Karnataka

5. LIC of India,

Reptd by its Development officer,

Mr.M.H.Melinamani,

LIC Building, Gulbarga Branch 1,

Jail Garden Road, P.B.No.16,

Gulbarga-585 101, Karnataka

6. LIC of India,

Reptd by its LIC Agent,

Mr.K.P.Raghavan,

LIC Building, Gulbarga Branch 1,

Jail Garden Road, P.B.No.16,

Gulbarga-585 101, Karnataka

(OP No.1 to 4-by Sri.Rajesh Shetty, Adv.,)

(OPNo.5-by Sri.Prakash M.Patil, Adv.,)

(OP No.6- Exparte)

O R D E R

BY SMT.SUNITA C.BAGEWADI, MEMBER

       The complainant filed this complaint against the Opposite Parties alleging deficiency in service and unfair Trade Practice and prays to direct the Opposite Parties to pay a sum of Rs.99,99,500-00 towards the loss of business, unwarranted litigation; Rs.3,00,000-00 for legal fees; Rs.9,24,891-00 and Rs.2,00,000-00 towards travel expenses; Rs.55,00,000-00 towards loss of business and business opportunities; Rs.30,00,000-00 towards compensation for harassment and mental agony; Rs.74,609-00 towards loss of interest on the investment of Rs.18,65,202-00 to the complainant and grant such other relief.

2. The brief facts of the complaints are as under:-

The complainant is permanent resident of H.No.1-867/37, Krishna Kunj, Venkatesh Naga, Gulbarga, Karnataka. However after marriage in 1992, the complainant resides with her husband in Dubai and manages her own business in Dubai called as “The Knowledge Hub”. The complainant used to visit her parental home every now and then to look after her father and mother. The complainant has NRI bank account in Gulbarga and she used to remit the money into this account.

The complainant further submits that, sometime in February 2012, LIC agent Mr.K.P.Raghavan, Development officer Sri.Mallikarjun H.Melinamani and Smt.Bhavani contacted the complainant’s father Sri.Sudhakar Pathak and explained to him about making an investment in one term/single money back policy with an assured overage of Rs.70.00 lakhs for a single premium of Rs.50,41,260-00. Believing the words of these LIC officials, policy bearing No.665772560 dated 27-2-2012 was taken and original policy documents was handed over by LIC officials to the complainant’s father. The initial single premium paid to LIC was Rs.50,41,260-00 and this account was transferred from bank account of the complainant/policy holder bearing cheque No.401705 dated 29-2-2012.

The complainant further submits that, thereafter in August 2013, LIC officials Sri.Mallikarjun H.Melinamani and Sri.K.P.Raghavan revisited the complainant’s father and falsely suggested that the existing policy no.665772560 could be upgraded by paying an additional sum of Rs.18,65,203-00 towards premium and they falsely assured by deliberate misrepresentation and deceit that the up-gradation would fetch total Rs.84.00 lakhs and additional bonus policy of Rs.2.00 lakhs which would be issued as a complement without any additional premium. The complainant’s father believing the assurance and the version of the said officials handed over a cheque for a sum of Rs.18,65,203-00 dated 31-8-2013 bearing No.001101 from the bank account of Krishna Grameena Bank. The said cheque was issued after premature liquidation of a fixed deposit standing in the name of complainant’s daughter. At this time LIC officials collected the original policy document bearing No.665772560 and specifically committed that the upgraded policy document will be handed back to the complainant’s father within 4 to 5 weeks time.

The complainant further submits that, on 23-1-2013 the complainant’s father visited LIC office to enquire and collect back the upgraded policy as assured by the said LIC officials. The said LIC officials dodged the main issued by giving evasive replies. The complainant’s father was not convinced with the answers and when he insisted upon information about the up gradation and bonus policy with Mr.Prakash Bant, the Chief Manager, LIC of India, Gulbarga (4^th OPP) he checked and informed the complainant’s father that there is no up gradation of policy bearing No.665772560 dated 27-2-2012 but on the contrary a loan of Rs.42,08,250-00 is raised on the said policy. When the complainant’s father requested the Chief Manager/4^th OPP to show the documents he bluntly refused and stated that he is not the policy holder and that the documents cannot be shown to him.

The complainant further submits that, the complainant came to India on 5-11-2013 and visited the LIC office Gulbarga along with her father on 8-11-2013 and met the 5^th OPP/Mr.Prakash D Bant, Chief Manager, LIC, Gulbarga Branch, and sought detailed clarifications on the so called loan transaction. The complainant was completely shocked when she was informed that she had signed and obtained a loan of Rs.42,08,250-00 by pleading original policy No.665772560 dated 27-2-2012 and the said money is used for subscribing another money back policy bearing No.666115819 dated 28-8-2013 for a sum of Rs.84.00 lakhs. The complainant neither applied for a loan with LIC nor applied for money back policy bearing No.666115819 dated 31-8-2013 for a sum of Rs.84.00 Lakhs. The complainant has not signed even a signal paper much less a proposal form or any such documents for opening the new policy. It is submitted that, on close examination of the papers received from LIC it is found that a new policy bearing No.666115819 dated 28-8-2013 is issued on the basis of the application which has been signed by someone, as if the same is signed by the complainant. Obviously, the complainant’s signature is forged because the complainant was not even in India at that time.

          The complainant further submits that, though the 5^th OPP had obtained letter dated 23-10-2013 from the complainant’s father for cancellation of the new policy No.666115819 dated 31-8-2013, no action was taken in the matter till the complainant put up her grievances before the Regional Manager (CRM) Hyderabad and explained the facts. Thereafter, the complainant has received a letter from Chief Manager Gulbarga on 31-12-2013 that they cancelled new policy 666115819 and loan raised on old policy No.665772560 and refunded Rs.18,65,202/- by cheque No.668653 dated 31-12-2013.

          The complainant further submits that, due to misrepresentation, fabrication of documents and forgery of signatures by LIC officials for creating a money back policy No.666115819 dated 31-8-2013, it not only became a case of deficiency of service and unfair trade practice but it also resulted in the 5^th OPP filing a false police complaint against the complainant. All this, caused the complainant to undergo unwarranted harassment, suffering, mental agony and stress for no fault from her side. All this would not have happened and the complainant would have suffered if not for the fabrication of policy No.666115819, the deficiency of service and unfair trade practice adopted by unscrupulous LIC officials. Later on the said 5^th OPP on his own accord has withdrawn the complaint stating that he had filed false police complaint and witnesses have testified to the same. Photocopy of the B-report filed by the police stand testimony to the fact 5^th OPP had abused the process of law and indeed filed a false complaint and initiated malicious prosecution against the complainant and her aged father without any rhyme or reasons, hence this complaint.      

3. After service of notice, the Opposite Party Nos. 1 to 4 appeared through their common counsel and filed common version. The Opposite Party no.5 appeared through his counsel and filed version. The Opposite Party No.6 absent, hence placed exparte.

4. In the version, the Opposite Party No.1 to 4 have admitted that the complainant had lodged a police complaint with the Chow police station, Gulbarga in Cr.No.0252/2013 in respect of the subject matter of the above complaint and contended that, the complainant has withdrawn the said complaint in Cr.No.252/2013 as per her withdrawal letter dated 5-5-2014 as the complaint was given by her misunderstanding. The Opposite Parties further contended that, accordingly final–B report dated 16-6-2014 has been submitted in the matter to the court by the police. Since, the criminal cases are compromised between the parties the complainant is barred from filing the above complaint in respect of the same cause of action before this Commission.  On this ground itself the complaint is liable to be dismissed in limine. The Opposite Parties further contended that, the complainant has made serious allegations as to misrepresentation, deceit, false suggestion, false assurance, un authorized and illegal transaction, forgery of signatures, fabrication of documents and impersonation against the development officer, Sri.M.H.Melinamani and the agent Sri.K.P.Raghavan in the above complaint. The said serious allegations involve complicated questions of law and facts requiring detailed investigation, enquiry and evidence which cannot be conducted in summary proceedings before this Commission. On this ground itself the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

The Opposite Parties No.1 to 4 further contended that, the complaint is also bad for non joinder of necessary parties and mis-joinder of parties. The complainant has specifically alleged in the complaint that the alleged transaction in the complaint took place between her father Sri.Sudhakar Pathak and the agent Sri.K.P.Raghavan and Development officer Sri.M.H.Melinamani and it is alleged that the complainant was not in India when the alleged transaction took place. However neither Sri.Sudhakar Pathak nor Sri.K.P.Raghavan and Sri.M.H.Melinamani are made parties to the above complaint. The said Sri.Sudhakar Pathak, Sri.K.P.Raghavan and Sri.M.H.Melinamani are necessary parties to the above complaint, whose presence before this Commission is necessary in order to enable the commission to effectually and completely adjudicate upon and settle all questions involved in the complaint. The Opposite Parties further contended that, the complainant who issued cheque bearing No.401705 dated 29-2-2012 drawn on SBI, Gulbarga branch, SB account No.3009484191 for an amount of Rs.50,41,260-00 along with proposal form for subscribing for policy bearing no.665772560, the complainant never states that she had no knowledge of the first cheque and does not dispute the purpose of issuance of the above cheque. Hence, the complainant acknowledges her consent for subscribing to the policy no.665772560. Further the father of complainant did not inform the corporation regarding complainant being resident of Dubai due to her occupation as Managing Director, Knowledge hub, Dubai, at the very first instance. If the father of the complainant had disclosed this fact, the corporation would have collected information as per NRI questionnaire.

The Opposite Parties further contended that, it was the complainant’s father who again issued the second cheque bearing No.001101 dated 31-10-2013 drawn on Krishna Grameena Bank for a sum of Rs.18,65,203-00 to the corporation as premium under new policy No.666115819 and anticipated imaginary bonus of Rs.2,00,000-00 per annum. However, later the complainant alleges that this cheque was not issued with her consent and she is unaware of that. Hence LIC of India cannot be held vicariously liable for the alleged criminal acts such as false suggestion false assurance, deliberate misrepresentation and deceit, un-authorized and illegal transactions, forgery, fabrication of documents and impersonation as alleged by the complainant in the complaint.

The Opposite Parties further contended that there is no system of upgrading the policy by covering additional risk on the policy already issued. If the policy holder wants to have additional risk on his or her life, a separate contract/ proposal is to be submitted with separate deposit amount towards fresh contract. It is submitted the LIC provides broachers etc. for canvassing its products. On 23-10-2013 the complainant’s father visited the Opposite Party No.4 office and raised objection on availing loan under policy No.665772560 and adjusting the same for issue of fresh policy No.666115819. On verification of the papers, it was observed that the complainant has applied for a loan under policy No.665772560 and requested vide her letter dated 12-6-2013 to sanction a loan under the said policy and reinvest it in new policy and also issued a cheque for Rs.18,65,203-00 in favour of LIC of India towards new policy. These Opposite Parties have also called for specimen signatures and the same was provided by the complainant in form No.PLO-21 dated 28-8-2013 duly attested by the Development officer Sri.M.H.Melinamani. In view of the objection raised by the complainant that she had not availed any loan, the matter was settled by cancelling the loan. The corporation has sent a cheque bearing no.668653 dated 31-12-2013 for Rs.18,65,202-00 with a covering letter to the complainant which is acknowledged by the complainant. The matter was thus closed by refunding the loan amount and waiving the loan interest amounting to Rs.1,35,750-00. The Corporation has waived Rs.1,35,750-00 due towards interest on the loan. The corporation has ordered for investigation / enquiry into the allegations made by the complainant and her father in the matter and the investigation is under process. Hence, the Opposite Parties prays to dismiss the complaint.

5. In the version, the Opposite Party No.5 submits that, in the entire complaint, the complainant has not mentioned the word about the Opposite Party No.5 as to how he is proper and necessary party to the complaint. Therefore, the complaint is bad for mis-joinder of parties. The Opposite Party No.5 is only a development officer of LIC of India and his duty is only to explain the merits and demerits of the investments to be made by the parties and hence, there is no question of involving this Opposite Party is bad in law and liable to be rejected. There is no deficiency of service can be attributed to this Opposite Party and hence, this Opposite Party cannot be made a responsible for the wrong doings said to have been committed by other Opposite Parties. The Opposite Party No.5 further submits that the above complaint has filed a complaint before the police, Gulbarga and police have registered the case Crime No.252/2013 dated 18-12-2013 against the this Opposite Party and thereafter, at the time of investigation the above has withdrew by the complaint. Hence, the complaint itself is not maintainable before this Commission.           

        6. The complainant has filed affidavit evidence and marked documents as Exs.C1 to C18. The Opposite Party No.1 to 4 filed their affidavit evidence and marked the documents as Exs.R1 to R3. The Opposite Party No.5 has not filed his affidavit evidence.

7. The Opposite Party No.1 to 4 filed written arguments and the complainant has also filed gist of the case.

8. On perusal, the following points will arise for our consideration;

(1)     Whether the complaint is deserved to be allowed?

(2)     Whether the complainant is entitled for the reliefs as sought?

(3)     What order?

9. The findings to the above points are;

                   (1)     In the negative  

(2)     In the negative  

(3)     As per the final order

R E A S O N S

10. Point Nos.1 and 2:-       Perused the contents of complaint, objections filed by the Opposite Parties, affidavit evidence of both parties and documents produced by both parties, we noticed that, the Opposite Parties are admitted the policy purchased by the complainant bearing No.665772560 for a sum of Rs.70.00 lakhs by paying Rs.50,41,260-00 on 27-2-2012 as Ex.C1. But the Opposite Parties are denied or other allegations of the complainant and contended that the complaint is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. The complainant has alleged that, the entire transaction took place between her father Sri.Sudhakar Pathak, the agent Sri.K.P.Raghavan and Development Officer Sri.M.H.Melinamani. However, the complainant has neither made these two peoples as parties to the proceedings.

11. Pursued the cause title of the complaint, we noticed that the complainant has made Mr.M.H.Melinamani, Development Officer, LIC of India and agent Mr.K.P.Raghavan as parties of the proceedings but not made the party Sri.Sudhakar Pathak, who is the necessary party to the proceeding, because as per the contention of the complainant, the transaction occurred between Sri.Sudhakar Pathak, Development Officer and the Agent. Hence, in our opinion, Sri.Sudhakar Pathak is the necessary party to the proceeding. The Opposite Parties further contended that, the complainant has made serious allegations of misrepresentation, deceit, false suggestion, false assurance, unauthorized and illegal transaction, forgery of signatures, fabrication of documents and impartiality against the development officer and the agent of LIC as such the allegations involved complicated questions of law and facts required detailed investigation, enquiry and evidence, which cannot be conducted in summary proceeding.

12. Perused the contents of complaint and evidence affidavit of complainant and Ex.R3, it is true that, the complainant has alleged that, in August, 2013 the Development Officer and the Agent of LIC revisited the complainant’s father and falsely suggested the existing policy No.665772560 could be upgraded by paying an additional sum of Rs.18,65,203-00 towards premium and they falsely assured by misrepresentation that the up-gradation would fetch total coverage of Rs.84.00 lakhs and additional bonus policy of Rs.2.00 lakhs without any additional premium and believing the assurance of official of LIC, the complainant’s father handed over a cheque for a sum of Rs.18,65,203-00 dated 31.08.2013 bearing cheque No.001101 from the bank account of Krishna Grameena Bank and the same was handed over by the complainant’s father on behalf of his daughter to the LIC officials. However, as per assurance, there is no up-gradation of policy bearing No.665772560 dated 27-2-2012. But on the contrary a loan of Rs.42,08,250-00 is raised on the said policy and the said money is used for subscribing another money back policy bearing No.666115819 dated 28-8-2013 for a sum of Rs.84.00 lakhs. The complainant alleged that she has neither applied for a loan nor applied for money back policy bearing No.666115819 dated 31-8-2013. She has not signed even a single paper/document. Perused loan request letter and other documents, we noticed that the complainant signature is not tally with the signatures on loan request letter. Each signature are different. Moreover, the complainant has filed criminal case No.231/13 against officials of LIC dated 25-11-2013 in 2^nd Additional Session Judge, Gulbarga and she itself absent in the proceedings. Hence, the Court holds that the complainant has agreed with regard of contents of “B” report submitted by the IO and after perusing “B” report hold that no incident was took place as alleged by the complainant and closed the case. Moreover, on 23-10-2013 the complainant’s father visited the Opposite Party No.4 and raised objections and availing the loan under the new policy and the complainant also raised the objections that she has not availed any loan. Here throughout the complaint, we noticed that, the allegation of complainant is that, misrepresentation, illegal transaction, forgery of signatures etc. not about the deficiency of service and unfair trade practice as per the Consumer Protection Act. Hence, we are of the opinion that, it involves complicated question of law and fact which are required detailed investigations. Moreover, we have not hand print expert. So that, on objection of complainant and her father the Opposite Parties have cancelled the loan and sent the cheque bearing no. 668653 dated 31-12-2013 for Rs.18,65,203-00 with covering letter which is acknowledged by the complainant and also waived the loan interest of Rs.1,35,750-00 before filing the complaint. Moreover, perused the letter dated 5-5-2014 Exs.R1 and R2 and final B-report dated 16-6-2014, we noticed that, the complainant has lodged the police complaint before Chowk Police Station, Gulbarga in Cr.No.252/2013 and the complainant has withdrawn the said complaint and the said criminal case is compromised between the both parties. Once the matter on one cause of action was settled, filing the complaint on same cause of action before this Commission is barred because one cannot trouble a party twice for same cause of action. In present case also, the complainant filed the complaint against the Opposite Parties on same cause of action and before filing the complaint, she has received the cheque of Rs.18,65,203-00. Moreover, from 2018 the complainant is continuously absent and not argued the matter before us, it seems that, the complainant is not interested to proceeds with the matter. Considering the facts discussion made here, we are of the opinion that, the complainant has failed to prove the deficiency of service on the part of the Opposite Parties and hence the complaint is dismissed. 

13. Point No.3: In view of above discussion, we proceed to pass the following:-

O R D E R

The complaint filed by the complainant is hereby dismissed by providing liberty to file complaint before proper court. No order as to costs.  

Send a copy of this order to both parties.

MEMBER                                            JUDICIAL MEMBER