Petitioners/complainants had taken a number of policies in their names as well as in their joint name with other members of the family through Sh. Y. R. Khanna, agent of the respondent                     insurance company.  They had handed over several cheques to the

-2-

agent, respondent No.4 which the respondent No.4 deposited with the respondent insurance company.  According to the petitioner, the cheques were credited towards the policies held by some other persons.  As the position was not clear, the petitioners were not in a position to reconcile their Accounts towards the policies.  Petitioner filed a complaint before the District Forum seeking following reliefs:

(i)                Direct the O.Ps No.1, 2 and 3 to account for all the amounts of the cheques mentioned in para 10 of the complaint towards the policies mentioned in para 4 and 5 of the complaint and refund the excess amount, if any, to the complainant with interest        @ 18% p.a. from the date of receipt/deposit till the date of actual refund; and

(ii)             Pay to the complainant damages/compensation of at least Rs.1,00,000/- for the mental agony, harassment and hardship caused to the Complainant; and to

(iii)           Pay to the Complainant a further sum of Rs.25,000/- for the financial loss caused to the Complainant in the process; and to

(iv)           Pay to the Complainant a further sum of Rs.25,000/- for the Unfair Trade Practices committed by them towards the complainant and the mental agony caused thereby to the complainant; and to

(v)             Pay to the complainant a further sum of Rs.1,000/- being fee for the notice dated 27.7.2002 sent to O.P. No.2 through Advocate; and to

(vi)           Pay to the complainant a further sum of Rs.11,000/- being legal expenses and also other costs and expenses amounting to Rs.2,000/- involved in pursuing this complaint before this Hon’ble Forum which the Complainant has been compelled to file for failure of O.Ps in carrying out the request of the Complainant despite their assurance in their letter dated 3.5.2002(Annexure C-3); and

(vii)        Any other relief which this Hon’ble Forum may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of this case.

          Respondent insurance company, on being served, put in appearance and filed its Written Statement.  A preliminary objection was being taken that the complaint was barred by limitation as it related to issuance of cheques which were more than two years old.  It was alleged that there was no deficiency in service as the complaint involved disputed questions of law and facts which required detailed evidence; that the complainant had given various other policies which were issued by the branches which did not fall within the territorial

-4-

jurisdiction of the District Forum; that the fraud alleged by the petitioners could not be decided by the District Forum; that the complaint was a misuse of process of law.  On merits, the allegations made in the complaint were denied in general giving some details of the cheques as asked for by the petitioners.

          District Forum after taking into consideration the pleadings as well as the evidence led by the parties allowed the complaint and issued following directions:

          “In view of above, we direct OP No. 1, 2 and 3 to intimate each of the complainant about the accounting of the cheques as detailed para 10 of each complaint clearly indicating to which policies they have been accounted for and on whose names these policies are standing.  We also award a sum of Rs.5,000/- as damages to be paid by OP No.1, 2 and 3 to each of the complainant along with Rs.1,000/- as cost.

          OP shall comply with the above mentioned order within 30 days of its receipt failing which proceedings u/s 27 of the Consumer Protection Act may be initiated.”

          Aggrieved against the order passed by District Forum, petitioners filed an appeal before the State Commission that the order

-5-

passed by the District Forum was vague and, therefore, not sustainable; that the District Forum had failed to take note of the prayer made in the complaint and instead of directing the respondent to give credit of the amount of the cheques in respect of their respective policies, directed to intimate each of the petitioners about the accounting of the cheques as detailed in para 10 of each complaint clearly indicating as to which policies they had been accounted for; that the District Forum should have directed the respondent to credit the amount of cheques in respect of their respective insurance policies as had been prayed for in the complaint.

          The State Commission finding force in the submission made by the counsel for the petitioner allowed the appeal and directed the respondents to credit the amount of cheques in respect of their respective insurance policies as had been prayed for in the complaint. 

          Not satisfied with the order passed by the State Commission, petitioners have filed present Revision Petitions seeking a direction other than what had been prayed for in the complaint.  According to

-6-

them, because of the changed circumstances the petitioners were entitled to refund of the amount paid by them through cheques instead of crediting the cheques amount towards the respective insurance policies; that this prayer was being made in view of the fact that the policies had already lapsed and cannot be revived even after adjustment of the amount.

          We have given our due consideration to the prayer made by counsel for the petitioner.  Such a prayer cannot be granted.  The petitioners filed a complaint with a specific prayer seeking a direction to the respondent to give credit of the amount of cheques in respect of respective insurance policies of the complainants stated in para 10 of the complaint.  The relief has been granted to the petitioners as   per prayer made in the complaint.  At this stage, petitioners cannot be permitted to turn around and seek refund of cheque amounts                 which were drawn in favour of the insurance policies which                 were handed over to the agent for deposit towards the respective

-7-

policies.  This prayer would go beyond the scope of the complaint which cannot be permitted.  Dismissed.  No costs.