Order by:

Sh.Amrinder Singh Sidhu,  President.

1.       The   complainant has filed the instant complaint under section 12 of  the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (as amended upto date) on the allegations that Opposite Party No.2 approached him and told that Opposite Party No.1 company is dealing with life care policies and giving handsome interest to the policy holders. On the allurement of Opposite Party No.2, the complainant purchased the policy bearing No.L/17/01/0001043 commenced w.e.f. 26.12.2012 and as per this policy, the complainant has to deposit Rs.2320/- per month for 8 years and at the end of the policy, the estimated realisable value at the end of term comes to Rs.1,05,600/- or would be given plot in the area desired by policy holder and or the company would pay money back of Rs.25,000/- after every 5 years  and in this way, the complainant deposited the instalments of Rs.2320/- every month through Opposite Party No.2. After the completion of term of five years, the complainant demanded the money back, but instead of payment of money back, the Opposite Party No.2 threatened the complainant  to face dire consequences. The complainant is entitled to  get the amount of Rs.44,000/- from the Opposite Parties, but to no affect.  In this way, the Opposite Parties committed a fraud with the complainant.  As such, there is deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties. Vide instant  complaint, the complainant has sought the following reliefs.

a)       To direct the Opposite Parties to pay the amount of policy and also to pay Rs.10,000/- as compensation for causing him mental tension and harassment and Rs.5,000/- as costs of litigation or any other relief to which this District Consumer Commission may deem fit be also granted. Hence, the present complaint is filed by the Complainant  for the redressal of  their grievances.

2.       On notice, none has come present on behalf of Opposite Party No.1 company, and hence Opposite Party No.1 was proceeded against exparte. 

3.       Opposite Party No.2 appeared through counsel and contested the complaint  by filing the written version taking preliminary objections therein inter alia that the present complaint is not maintainable; that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party.  Brief facts are that previously, Opposite Party No.2 was working with Opposite Party No.1 Company being as its employee on monthly salary and said Opposite Party No.1 Company was working under the supervision of Manohar Lal Managing Director of the said company. After some time, Opposite Party No.2 left the job of Opposite Party No.1 and started to do some other work. The complainant is political influential person and he was known to Manohar Lal Managing Director of Opposite Party No.1 and he had invested his money at the instance of said Manohar Lal. Thereafter, some dispute arose between the complainant and said Manohar Lal. Hence there was no money transaction/ dealing of any kind between the Opposite Party No.2 and complainant and nothing is payable by Opposite Party No.2 to the complainant. Now the complainant has filed the present complaint only to harass the Opposite Party No.2 and thus the complaint is liable to be dismissed with costs. On merits, Opposite Party No.2 took up the same and similar pleas as taken up by them in the preliminary objections and hence, it is prayed that the complaint of the complainant is liable to be dismissed against Opposite Party No.2.

4.       In order to prove his case, the complainant has tendered into evidence  affidavit  of complainant Ex.CW1 alongwith copies of documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C16 and closed the evidence.

5.       On the other hand, to rebut the evidence of the complainant,  Sh.Gursimran Singh, Advocate appeared on behalf of Opposite Party No.2 has made a statement before this District Consumer Commission on 19.05.2022 that he does not want to tender any documents in evidence, however written reply already filed on behalf of Opposite Party No.2 be read as evidence of Opposite Party No.2.

6.       We have heard the complainant and ld.counsel for Opposite Party No.2 and also gone through the documents placed on record.

7.       During the course of arguments, the Complainant as well as ld.counsel for Opposite Party No.2 have mainly reiterated the facts as narrated in the complaint as well as in the written statements respectively. We have perused the rival contentions of  the parties and also gone through the record on file. The main contention of the complainant is that he had deposited his hard earned money with Opposite Party No.1 through Opposite Party No.2 on interest basis and as per the agreed terms, when after five years, he raised the demand of money back policy, then the Opposite Parties refused. On the other hand, ld.counsel for Opposite Party No.2 has repelled the aforesaid contention of the complainant on the ground that previously, Opposite Party No.2 was working with Opposite Party No.1 company being as its employee on monthly salary and said Opposite Party No.1 company was working under the supervision of Manohar Lal Managing Director of the said company. After some time, Opposite Party No.2 left the job of Opposite Party No.1 and started to do some other work. The complainant is political influential person and he was known to Manohar Lal Managing Director of Opposite Party No.1 and he had invested his money at the instance of said Manohar Lal. Thereafter, some dispute arose between the complainant and said Manohar Lal. Hence there was no money transaction/ dealing of any kind between the Opposite Party No.2 and complainant and nothing is payable by Opposite Party No.2 to the complainant.

8.       Perusal of the record shows that  none has come present on behalf of the Opposite Party No.1 company with whom the complainant has deposited his hard earned money and rather chose to remain absence and did not bother to adhere its liability of making the deposited amount to the complainant as agreed. On the other hand, the evidence produced by the complainant alongwith is duly sworn affidavit Ex.CW1 is to be admitted as true in the absence of any rebuttal in the shape of affidavit of the Opposite Party No.2 who has failed to produce the same to support its defence.   It has been held by the Hon'ble State Commission of Punjab in case  Life Insurance Corporation of India Vs. Miss Veenu Babbar and another 2000(1) CLT 619 that where no supporting affidavit is filed by the tenderer of the documents, these documents could not be treated as substantive material to base any decision. Same view has been taken by the Hon'ble National Commission in case Life Insurance Corporation of India & Ors. Vs. Kunari Devi IV(2008) CPJ 89 (NC) that where no affidavit has been produced in support of allegation, the documents so produced not to be treated as evidence of the tenderer of those documents.          Moreover, an advocate appearing on behalf of the parties cannot assume and put himself in the witness box on behalf of parties for filing an affidavit in evidence or bringing on record an important piece of evidence. The written reply has been filed  without any supporting affidavit of any officer of the Opposite Party No.2  and thus the written reply brought on the record, as referred to herein above by ld.counsel for the Opposite Party No.2  cannot be read in evidence per se as it has been held by the Hon'ble State Commission in “Malay Kumar Ganguly versus Dr. Sukumar Mukherjee and others, 2009 (V) RCR Kumar Ganguly versus Dr. Sukumar Mukherjee and others, 2009 (V) RCR Criminal page 1, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court, while interpreting Order 13 Rule 4 and 7 documents marked as Exhibited-whether such document is admissible, pleased to held that:

“ordinarily if a party to an action does not object to a document being taken on record and the same is marked as an exhibit, he is estopped and precluded from questioning the admissibility therefore at later stage. It is, however, trite that a document becomes inadmissible in evidence unless author thereof is examined; the contents thereof cannot be held to have been proved unless he is examined and subjected to cross examination in a court of law.”

9.       Further perusal of the record i.e. copies of unrebutted receipts Ex.C1 to Ex.C15 produced on record by the complainant shows that the  complainant has deposited Rs.34,800/- vide different 15 receipts  of Rs.2320/- each (Ex.C1 to Ex.C15)  and the said amount deposited by the complainant has not been disputed between the parties and as such, the complainant is entitled to get the said deposited amount refunded alongwith interest from the Opposite Parties.

10.     Resultantly, we partly allow the complaint  of the complainant and the Opposite Parties are  jointly or severally directed to make the deposited amount of Rs.34,800/- (Rupees thirty four thousands eight hundred only) alongwith interest @ 8% per annum from its respective deposit dates till its actual realisation.   The compliance of this order be made by the Opposite Parties within 60 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which the Complainant shall be at liberty to get the order enforced through the indulgence of this Commission. Copies of the order be furnished to the parties free of costs. File is ordered to be consigned to the record room.

11.     Reason for delay in deciding the complaint.

          This complaint could not be decided within the prescribed period because the State Government has not appointed any of the Whole Time Members in this Commission for about 3 years i.e. w.e.f. 15.09.2018 till 27.08.2021 as well as due to pandemic of COVID-19.

Announced in Open Commission.

Dated:07.06.2022.