SRI.R. VIJAYAKUMAR, MEMBER.

            This complaint is filed under section [11] and 12 of  Consumer Protection Act.

          The complainant’s case is that the 1^st opp.party unilaterally, without the consent of the complainant his immatured deposit Rs.40,000/- in the 1^st opp.party institution transferred to 2^nd opp.party institution.   The matter

was came to the knowledge of the complainant only when some letters were received from the 2^nd opp.party.   The complainant never signed any papers of 2^nd opp.party institution.  The 1^st and 2^nd opp.parties colluded for deceiting the complainant.   The  1^st opp.party acted with an intention to get un due profit.   The act of opp.parties amounts to deficiency in service from their part.  Hence the complaint is filed for getting reliefs.

          The 1^st opp.party filed version contenting interalia that the complaint is not maintainable.

          On 24..12..2007 the complainant deposited an amount of Rs.17,500/- in the 1^st opp.party institution for an interest at the rate of 12% and for a period of 4 years.   Again on 5..2..2008 he had deposited Rs.27,000/- towards term loan with the same rate of interest and for 3 years.  On 28..7..2008, the complainant came and requested to make arrangements to pay back the amount with the interest accrued on the same day itself due to the urgent financial needs.  The opp.party arranged to pay back the I deposit Rs.18,748/- and II deposit Rs.285435/- including interest accrued towards full and final settlement.   The transaction between the complainant and the 1^st opp.party had been come to an end.   The opp.party is totally unaware of the alleged dealing of the complainant with the 2^nd opp.party        

          The 2^nd opp.party filed separate version contending that the allegation in the complaint are baseless.   The complainant had proposed for a Reliance Automatic Investment Plan Policy on July 29, 2008 by paying an annual amount of premium Rs.40,000/- for a sum assured of Rs.2,00,000/- with Risk commencement date as July 2005 and the policy was dispatched to the complainant.   The complainant after satisfying terms and conditions of the policy had signed application form.   The complainant had not raised any objection or complaint within the fee lock period of 15 days.   The complainant is not entitled to any relief as prayed by him.   There is no deficiency in service from the part of the opp.party.

          The complainant filed affidavit.  PW.1 examined.   Exts. P1 to P3 and D1 to D4 marked.

From the side of opp.parties DW.1 examined.

The Points that would ariswe for consideration are:

Whether there is any deficiency in service from the part of opp.parties ?

1.     2. Reliefs and costs?

THE POINTS:  

As a matter of fact the complainant deposited an amount of Rsa.17,500/- on 24..12..2007 for a term of 4 years and Rs.27,000/- on

5..2..2008 for a terms of 3 years in the 1^st opp.party institution.   There is no  dispute regarding the payment of interest by the 1^st opp.party.

          Now the question is whether the complainant had voluntarily closed  the premature deposit and had taken the Automatic Investment Plan by paying Rs.40,000/- or the 1^st opp.party without the consent of the complainant transferred the amount to the 2^nd opp.party institution, for investment to the Reliance Automatic Investment Scheme.

According to the complainant, the opp.party unilaterally, without the consent of the complainant transferred the premature deposit amount of Rs.40,000/-  to the 2^nd opp.party institution.   

          According to the 1^st opp.party they were not aware of the dealings of the complainant with the 2^nd opp.party.   The term loan was closed and all amount due to the complainant was paid by the 1^st opp.party.   The 1^st opp.party had no relation with the 2^nd opp.party or with the new transaction.   The complainant had stated in the complaint that the opp.party without the knowledge and consent of the complainant, deposited the premature deposit in the 2^nd opp.party institution and till the time of the receipt of some papers he had no knowledge about the deposit.

          Nothing has been explained to him regarding the Reliance Insurance Policy.

While in cross examination the complainant admitted that he is well aware that the signature of the applicant is necessary for joining in an Insurance Scheme.   Further he had admitted that the signature and photographs affixed in Ext. D4 are of the complainant.   The complainant has stated in the complaint and while in cross examination that the 1^st opp.party compelled him to take policy stating that it deposited in Reliance Automatic Investment Plan, the amount will raised to 3 times within 3 years.  He had further stated while cross examination that without considering his objection the 1^st opp.party compelled him to put his signature.  He had also contended that the form was not filled up by him.  But he had not raised any contention regarding the particulars mentioned in the Form.  It is obvious from these facts that the complainant himself had furnished the particular mentioned in the form and signed the form.

It is pertinent to note here that the complainant is an Educated person working in Government Service.  It is unbelievable that he had signed the form without the knowledge of anything about the scheme.   Admittedly he  had signed for the closure of the premature deposits.  No dispute was raised by the  complainant that he had closed the deposit under the pressure of the 1^st opp.party.  The only contention raised   in this regard is that he has not received the amount.

          The complainant has stated in the complaint that he had got knowledge about the Reliance Insurance Policy only on getting some papers from the 2^nd opp.party.  An educated person can very well know that Ext. D4 is a policy document.

The learned counsel for the 2^nd opp.party would argue that a person after executing proposal form and without exercising his right to cancel the policy within 15 days of free look period has no locusstandi to challenge the policy.  As per general condition No.XV  of Ext. D4 policy, the complainant has got an option and free look period, in case he disagreed with any of terms and conditions of the policy he may return the policy to the company within 15 days of its receipt for cancellation stating his objection, in which case, the company will refund an amount equal to the non allocated premium plus charges applicable to the complainant.  But the complainant never requested to the 2^nd opp.party to cancel the policy.   While in cross examination the complainant had stated that he had not cared to readout the policy conditions as the entire transaction was cheating.

          The answer given by PW.1 is against common logic. Naturally an educated person will read the content of that document.

On perusal of the entire materials and evidence before us we are of the opinion that the complainant voluntarily closed the premature deposits and had furnished all particulars, affixed the photo and signature in the proposal form.   The complainant failed to prove his case.   We find that there is no 

deficiency  in service from the part of opp.parties.

          In the result, the complaint is dismissed.   There is no order as to costs.

          Dated this the 31^st day of May, 2012.

                                                          I N D E X

List of witnesses for the complainant.

PW.1. Shibu.S. Babu

List documents for the complainant

P1. – Copy of Advocate notice dated 5..8..2009.

P2. – Postal receipt

P3. – Acknowledgement card

List of witnesses for the opp.party

DW.1. – Martin.J. George

List of documents for the opp.parties

D1. – Popular Traders Registerr

P2. – Popular Traders Register

D3. – Popular Traders Register

D4. – Policy document