DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II

Udyog Sadan, C-22 & 23, Qutub Institutional Area

(Behind Qutub Hotel), New Delhi-110016.

Case No.870/06

Sh. Naveen Kr. Peer

S/o Late Sh. Moti Lal Peer,

R/o KG-I/250, MIG Flats,

Vikas Puri, New Delhi                                                      ….Complainant

Versus

1.       Shri Anil Kumar Rajpal, Chairman

          NZRE/CTC Society Ltd.

          Baroda House,

          New Delhi-110001

2.       LIC of India

          through its Sr. Branch Manager

          29-30, Anuvrat Tower,

          Wazirpur Community Centre,

          Delhi-110052                                                     ….Opposite Parties  

                                                          Date of Institution          : 11.05.06                      Date of Order   : 04.03.17

Coram:

Sh. N.K. Goel, President

Ms. Naina Bakshi, Member

                                                ORDER

SH. N.K. GOEL, PRESIDENT

Complainant, a member of Northern Zone Railway Employee Credit and Thrift Co-operative Society Ltd. (to be referred as OP No.1) vide registration No.22208 has filed the present complaint for issuing directions to the OPs to produce the bond/policy, monthly premium receipt and copy of the agreement No.PA-8014-11P executed between the OP No.1 and the OP No.2 LIC and also to award the compensation and penalty.

It is borne out from the perusal of the entire file that the OP No.1 in order to secure the interest of its individual members at the time of their death/retirement/leaving the services and also for securing the Society loan given to the individual members had entered into an agreement with the OP No.2 with a provision that each member of OP No.1 shall pay Rs.50/- per month of the premium of his individual policy. The OP No.1 Society consisted of 65,000 nos. of members and the monthly premium of the policy given to the OP No.2 was more than Rs.32,50,000/-. Feeling great apprehension that the complainant may not get the benefit of his LIC policy at the time of contingency, he wrote a letter to OP No.1 on 31.01.06 asking OP No.1 to send the copy of his LIC monthly receipt, LIC bond and copy of agreement executed between OP No.1 & OP No.2; that the  OP No.1 vide letter dated 03.02.06 intimated the complainant that no receipt in the name of individual member was issued by OP No.2 for the monthly premium. The complainant asked for the monthly consolidated premium receipt of 65,000 nos. of members but the OP No.1  failed to disclose the individual policy bond No. and bond given by the OP No.2.  Feeling disappointed, the complainant vide his letter dated 10.03.06 wrote to OP No.2 to supply his LIC bond/policy, LIC premium receipt and copy of the agreement executed between OP No.1 and OP No.2. OP No.2 vide letter dated 29.03.06 requested OP No.1 to inform the policy No. and other premium remittance deposits to OP No.2 so that OP No.2 may be able to find out the details in respect of their policies. The OP No.2 disclosed the agreement No.PA-8014-11P in its letter. According to the Complainant, he came to know from the reliable sources that OP No.1 was paying only about half of the monthly premium to the OP No.2 and taking full premium from the members and OP No.1 was not clearing the claims of the members and hence the complainant apprehended fraud committed by the OPs jointly and severally. According to the Complainant, from the poster pasted in and around his office he also came to know that there was a commission agent between OP No.1 and OP No.2 and major amount of commission was paid to the agents which was actually utilized by Sh. Anil Kumar Rajpal, the Chairman of OP No.1 Society though in the initial agreement it was settled between OP No.1 Society through Sh. Anil Kumar Rajpal and OP No.2 that the OP No.1 will act for the members and no commission agent shall be appointed and thus the apprehension of the complainant is that the said Chairman of OP No.2 has committed fraud with the funds of the members and members may not get their claims in future at the relevant point of time. Therefore, claiming deficiency in service, restrictive trade practice and unfair trade practice against the OPs within the purview of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 the complainant has filed the present complaint with the above stated prayers.

In its reply OP No.1 has inter-alia pleaded that it was agreed between OP No.1 & OP No.2 that the premium would be paid every month by OP No.1 itself to OP No.2 for the benefit of its members and it was agreed that the OP No.2 would cover the policy of 55,000 members; that Master Policy No.OGI/311434 was issued by OP No.2 to OP No.1. It is stated that premium receipts were being issued to OP No.1; that while taking the said policy by OP No.1 from OP No.2 it was specially agreed and settled between the OP No.1 and OP No.2 vide letter dated 20.11.1998 that there would not be any agent or mediator of any kind in respect of  the said policies of the members of OP No.1 and that OP No.1 itself would act as an agent and that no commission would be paid to any commission agent in respect of said policies and also that the commission in respect of the policies of the members of OP No.1 would be paid by OP No.2 directly to OP No.1. It is inter-alia stated that the OP No.1 received a letter dated 16.08.06 from OP No.2 whereby OP No.1 was informed that the Master Policy bearing No.OG1/311434 has lapsed w.e.f. 02.12.2002 though the OP No.1 was not aware regarding the alleged lapse of the Master Policy prior to it and it was an unilateral act on the part of OP No.2. and, that being so, the cancellation of the Master Policy by OP No.2 is illegal and unlawful in accordance with the several letters of OP No.2 itself and that the OP No.1 has been making the payment of several claims to the members of OP No.1  and has paid the same from the Reserved Fund  only at the instructions of OP No.2. Mention has been made about making payment by OP No.1 to the OP No.2 in the month of March, 2003. It is stated that the OP No.1 was shocked to know about the unilateral action on the part of the OP No.2 that an amount of Rs.89,23,444.90p and an amount of Rs.29,42,689.80p had been paid to Ms. Preeti Bhatnagar and Ms. Mamta Bhatnagar respectively out of the total commission amount of Rs1,18,66, 132/- from the premium amount in respect of  the policies of the members of the OP No.1 which is liable to be declared as illegal, unlawful, null and void; that OP No.1 has filed a suit for declaration, permanent and mandatory injunction and recovery of Rs.1,18,66,132/- against the OP No.2 (suit No.1812/2006 pending in the Hon’ble High Court). So far as the original record of LIC is concerned it is stated that most of the same has been taken away by one Sh. Ashwani Kr. Peer, a dismissed employee and the real elder brother of the complainant who was employed as Manager (temporary status) in OP No.1 and dismissed from his services due to his illegal activities and misconduct after enquiry and following the process; that the  present complaint is nothing but a counterblast of the action of dismissal of Sh. Ashwani Kr. It is prayed that the complaint be dismissed.  

In the reply OP No.2 has inter-alia pleaded that as per their record the complainant is covered under the policy No.121234097 under the P.A. Code No. 8014012 of OP No.1 and that the policy was started on 29.11.1998 with a monthly premium of Rs.50/- and the total premium of Rs.4850/- stands credited against this policy as on 30.11.06 and also that the policy is in full force as on 17.01.07 with monthly premium due on 20.12.06.  It is stated that the alleged non-supply of information to the complainant relates to OP No.1. According to the OP No.2 premium was being received against 35663 policies @ Rs.50/- each insured and that the OP No.2 had procured the business under PA No.8014-012 through valid insurance agencies i.e. the agents authorized by the Controller of Insurance or IRDA for procuring new life business. It is prayed that the complaint be dismissed.

Complainant has filed separate replications to the replies of the OPs. In the replication to OP No.2 it is inter-alia stated that in the  agreement executed in 1998 between OP No.1 & OP No.2 it was clearly mentioned that there was no agent between OP No.1 & OP No.2  and OP No.1 will act as agent.

Complainant has filed his own affidavit in evidence. On the other hand, affidavit of Sh. Anil Kr. Rajpal, Chairman and affidavit of Ms. Madhu Grover, an official have been filed in evidence on behalf of the OP No.1 & 2 respectively.

Written arguments have been filed on behalf of the Complainant and the OPs. 

We have heard the oral arguments on behalf of the Complainant and have also gone through the material placed before us.

At the outset, we must say that the matter would have been been simple but, however, the parties themselves have made it complicated by their own pleadings. In order to decide the complaint the Forum has to necessarily adjudicate upon the issues, (i) Whether the agreement bearing No. PA-8014-11P executed between the OP No.1 and OP No.2 had contained a clause for the requirement of a commission agent between them?, (ii) Whether the OP No.2 was justified in paying such huge amounts to the two commission agents named in the reply of OP No.2?, (iii) Whether the above stated policy has infact lapsed on 02.12.02 but intimated to OP No.1 vide letter dated 16.08.06 and, if so, to what effect?, (iv) Whether there is any collusion between OP No.1 and OP No.2 as alleged by the complainant?, (v) Whether OP No.1 is guilty of committing fraud on the Complainant and its other members and all other related issues. In our considered opinion, all these issues require recording of oral statements of the witnesses, their cross-examination, filing of the documents and the detailed discussions on these issues.

Therefore, in our considered opinion, this Forum is not competent to decide the controversies raised in the complaint. It is undisputed case of the parties that the OP No.1 has already filed a suit for declaration, permanent and mandatory injunction and recovery of Rs.1,18,66,132/- against the OP No.2 and the same being suit No. 1812/06 was pending on the date of filing of the reply by OP No.1.  We do not know about the present status of that case. Anyhow,  we are not required to go into this issue. Therefore, we hold that this Forum has no jurisdiction to resolve the issues involved in the complaint.

In view of the above discussion, we dismiss it with no order as to costs.

Let a copy of this order be sent to the parties as per regulation 21 of the Consumer Protection Regulations.  Thereafter file be consigned to record room.

Announced on 04.03.17.