IN THE DISTRICT CONSUMERS’ DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT MYSORE<br /> <br /> PRESENT: 1. Shri.A.T.Munnoli<br /> B.A., L.L.B (Spl.) - President <br /> <br /> 2. Smt.Y.V.Uma Shenoi,<br /> M.Sc., B.Ed., - Member<br /> 3. Shri. Shivakumar.J.<br /> B.A., L.L.B., - Member<br /> <br /> CC 151 & 152/10 DATED 01.07.2010<br /> COMMON ORDER<br /> <br /> Complainant in C.C.151/2010<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> Complainant in C.C.152/2010 K. Sathya Narayana S/o late H. Krishnappa, R/at D.No.291, 5th Main Road, Jayanagara, Mysore-14.<br /> <br /> Smt. H.T. Prabhamani W/o K. Sathya Narayana, R/at D.No.291, 5th Main Road, Jayanagara, Mysore-14.<br /> (By Sri B.N.S. Advocate)<br /> <br /> Vs. <br /> Opposite Party in both cases is same 1. The Managing Director, M/s Reliance Life Insurance Company Limited, Anil Dheerubai Ambani Groups, Reliable Capital Company, H Block, 1st Floor, Dheerubai Ambani Knowledge City, Nav Mumbai. Nagarasgtra State-400710.<br /> 2. The Branch Manager, Reliance Insurance Company Limited, 1st Floor, Giriyas Plaza, Opp. KSRTC Bus Stand, Bangalore-Nilgiri Road, Mysore-570001.<br /> (By Sri. G.C. Advocate)<br /> Nature of complaint : Deficiency in service<br /> Date of filing of complaints : 20.04.2010<br /> Date of appearance of O.P. : 05.05.2010<br /> Date of order : 01.07.2010<br /> Duration of Proceeding : 1 MONTH 26 DAYS <br /> <br /> PRESIDENT <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> MEMBER<br /> <br /> MEMBER<br /> <br /> <br /> Sri. A.T.Munnoli,<br /> President<br /> <br /> 1. The complainants are husband and wife and the opposite parties in both cases are common. Further, the facts and the grievance alleged by the complainants and the defence of the opposite parties is common. Hence, for convenience by the common order both cases are disposed off.<br /> <br /> 2. The complainants have filed the complaints alleging deficiency in service that an advisor of the opposite party Insurance Company by name Mr. R.N. Sharma had collected insurance premium and it is prayed to direct the opposite parties to issue valid receipt, for the amount of Rs.90,000/- in the first case and 25,000/- in the second case.<br /> <br /> 3. In the versions, opposite parties have contended that, complaints are not maintainable for non-joinder of Mr. R.N. Sharma and secondly, it is contended that opposite parties are not aware of any personal transaction between the complainants and Mr. R.N. Sharma and since, the complainants have not paid the premium amount to the opposite parties, receipts have not been issued and the policies are at lapsed status.<br /> <br /> 4. Respective parties have filed their affidavits and produced certain documents. We have heard the arguments of both the learned advocates and perused the records.<br /> <br /> 5. Now, the points for our consideration are as under.<br /> 1. Whether the complainants have proved any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties and that they are entitled to any reliefs?<br /> 2. What order?<br /> <br /> 6. Our findings are as under:-<br /> Point no.1 : Partly in affirmative.<br /> Point no.2 : As per the order.<br /> <br /> REASONS<br /> <br /> 7. Point no. 1:- The fact that, the complainants took insurance policy of the opposite party company is admitted. Further, admittedly in the first case, complainant had paid two premiums and in the second case first premium was paid. The complainants claim that, in the first case, towards third premium a sum of Rs.90,000/- and in the second case, towards second premium a sum of Rs.25,000/- was paid to the advisor by name Mr. R.N. Sharma, but valid receipt had not been issued.<br /> <br /> 8. The fact that, opposite party Insurance Company appointed Mr. R.N. Sharma as an advisor/agent is not denied or disputed by the opposite parties. The respective complainants have specifically alleged in the complaints and stated in the affidavits that, they have paid the amount of the premiums to the said advisor Mr. R.N. Sharma. That fact is not specifically denied by the opposite parties. The opposite parties contended that, they are not aware about the personal transactions took place between the complainants and Mr. R.N. Sharma. At the out set, it is important to note that, payment of amount towards premiums by the complainants to Mr. R.N. Sharma cannot be termed as personal transactions. Because, admittedly complainants were policy holders of the opposite party Insurance Company and Mr. R.N. Sharma was the advisor/agent of the opposite party Insurance Company. Hence, said transactions are not personal. In the result, payment of amount by the complainants, towards the premiums to the agent of the opposite party Insurance Company, is established.<br /> <br /> 9. When admittedly Mr. R.N. Sharma was the advisor/agent of the opposite party Insurance Company, the act of said agent in receiving the premium amount is binding on opposite party-Insurance Company. The fact has now alleged and contended is that, said Mr. R.N. Sharma has misappropriated the amount but pending of the criminal case will not absolve the opposite party Insurance Company from the liability towards the complainants.<br /> <br /> 10. Learned advocate for the opposite parties with reference to the guide lines mentioned in the policy submitted that, customers are advised not to hand over cash to Reliance Life Insurance advisors to make the premium dues. Customers are requested to visit the nearest Reliance Life Insurance Branch and cash handed over to the advisor is at the risk of the customer. At the same time there is further mention that, “please ensure that you obtain a receipt for the cash handed over”. In the case on hand, having paid the cash by the complainants towards premium, receipts have been obtained. Hence, the said advice in the policy will not absolve the liability of the opposite party company.<br /> <br /> 11. Certain other contentions also have been taken by the opposite parties, for which learned advocate for the complainants pointed out that, in other similar cases this Forum found the deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties and copy of the order in CC-205/2009 & 206/2009 dated 21.08.2009 is produced. Considering the said order and the facts of the case on hand, we found no reasons to take different view.<br /> <br /> 12. Accordingly, we are of the opinion that, complainants have proved deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. Accordingly, our finding on the point is partly in affirmative.<br /> <br /> 13. Point No. 2:- From the discussions made above and conclusion arrived at, we pass the following order: <br /> ORDER<br /> <br /> 1. Both the complaints are allowed in part.<br /> 2. The opposite parties are hereby directed jointly and severally to issue valid receipt for a sum of Rs.90,000/- to the complainant in CC-151/2010 and for Rs.25,000/- in CC-152/2010, within a month from the date of the order.<br /> 3. Further, opposite parties jointly and severally shall pay a compensation of Rs.2,000/- to each of the complainants, towards mental agony and inconvenience caused within a month from the date of the order, failing which the amount will carry interest at the rate of 10% p.a.<br /> 4. So also opposite parties to pay a sum of Rs.1,000/- to each of the complainants towards the cost of the proceedings.<br /> 5. The original order shall be kept in CC-151/10 and the Xerox copy in CC-152/10.<br /> 6. Give a copy of this order to each party according to Rules.<br /> (Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by her, transcript revised by us and then pronounced in the open Forum on this the day 1st July 2010)<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> (A.T.Munnoli) <br /> President <br /> <br /> <br /> (Y.V.Uma Shenoi)<br /> Member<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> (Shivakumar.J)<br /> Member<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />