DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM  PALAKKAD

Dated this the  21^th   day of August 2017

Present   : Smt.Shiny.P.R. President

               : Smt.Suma.K.P.  Member                                 Date of filing:  23/12/2015

               : Sri.V.P.Anantha Narayanan, Member

                                                      (C.C.No.198/2015)       

Girija Appunni,W/o Appunni,                                    -        Complainant

Sreevalsam, Palappuram Po, Ottappalam,

Palakkad 679 103.

(Adv.N.Ragesh)

 V/s

1.  Manager,                                                             -       Opposite party

     State Bank of India Ottappalam Branch,

     Main Road, Ottappalam.     

2.  Chief General Manager State Bank of India

     Regional Head Office, Thampanur,

     Thiruvananthapuram

(Adv.Jayan)

3.  SBI Life Insurance Co.Ltd,

     ‘Natraj’, M.V.Road & Westeren Express Highway Junction,

     Andheri East, Mumbai

4.  SBI Life Insurance Co. Ltd,

    3^rd Floor, P.P.Tower, Main Road,

    Ottappalam, Palakkad.

 (Adv.P.Prasad)

3^rd and 4^th opposite parties were included in array of opposite parties as supplemental opposite parties as per amendment carried out vide order in IA 154/2016 dated. 23.04.2016

O R D E R

By V.P.Anantha Narayanan, Member

          Brief Facts of the complaint.

          On 19.01.2008 the complainant contacted 1^st opposite party to make a fixed deposit of Rs.86,000/-.  At that time, according to the complainant, by making the complainant believe that the documents collected from the complainant were those for making fixed deposit.  1^st opposite party bank also got the complainant sign some forms and papers and as specimen signature other signatures of the complainant were also collected; the complainant was made to believe that Rs.86,000/- collected from her was deposited in fixed deposit for 5 years and no document was given for this fixed deposit.  After the maturity period, when the complainant contacted the opposite party bank, she came to know that she did not make a fixed deposit but accepted SBI Life Insurance – Unit Plus II Pension Plan.  The complainant knew about this pension plan for the first time in this context.  For making fixed deposit when the complainant went to the opposite party bank he was made to misunderstand and got her signature on paper and printed form and without her knowledge and concern, the amount entrusted by the complainant for making fixed deposit was deposited by the 1^st opposite party in pension scheme, according to complainant.  Complainant pleads that this act of the opposite party amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.  On 20.02.2014 notices were sent to opposite parties but no replies.   Hence the complainant prays to the Hon’ble Forum to direct the opposite parties to return Rs.86,000/- entrusted with the opposite parties for making fixed deposit together with interest thereon up to this date, to pay a compensation of Rs. Of Rs.25,000/- to the complainant for mental tension and difficulties suffered by her because of the act of opposite party and provide other reliefs.

          Complaint was admitted and notice was issued to opposite parties. 

          In the version filed by 1^st & 2^nd opposite parties, they deny all the allegation and averments in the complaint except those that are specifically admitted.  According to them the complaint is not maintainable either in law or on facts.   They also contend that complainant is not a consumer because there is no consumer relationship between the complainant and the respondents in respect of the alleged transaction.  Therefore the above petition is not maintainable before this Hon’ble Fourm.  In addition the above complaint is barred by limitation.  Hence the petition is liable to be dismissed.  Opposite parties 1 & 2 deny the allegation that on 19.01.2008 the complainant

approached the 1^st opposite party to make a fixed deposit of Rs.62,000/- to the 1^st opposite party, who made the petitioner sign some forms stating that they are necessary for receiving fixed deposit are totally false and hence denied.  The allegation that the 1^st opposite party obtained other signatures as specimen signature and made the complainant believe that fixed deposit for five years has been made are also false and hence denied.  According to the 1^st opposite party bank, they issue proper receipt for every amount received by the bank in the ordinary course of its business and the complainant has the responsibility to obtain such a receipt.  It is totally false to state that the petitioner came to know that it was Unit Plus II Plan of SBI life Insurance Co.Ltd that was accepted and not fixed deposit only when the complainant approached the bank to withdraw the amount.  According to 1^st & 2^nd opposite party, the petitioner has invested the amount in SBI Life Insurance Plan, knowingly and consciously after understanding fully the details of the scheme.  The complainant has been issued the relevant policy by SBI Life Insurance Co. Ltd.  Since the 1^st opposite party has not received any amount from the complainant towards fixed deposit, the question of depositing the amount in SBI Life Insurance Plan does not arise at all.  It is therefore clear that the intention of the complainant was to invest the money in SBI Life Insurance and not in fixed deposit.  The 2^nd opposite party has not received any legal notice said to have been issued by the complainant.  According to 1^st opposite party, complainant had caused to issue a notice to the 1^st opposite party, but there after when the complainant visited the bank 1^st opposite party has informed her that there is no such fixed deposit in the name of the complainant and the complainant was convinced and satisfied.  Hence there is no deficiency of service on the part of 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties.  The petitioner has not deposited any amount with the 1^st opposite party bank on 19.01.2008 or on any other day.  Since no deficiency of service has occurred on the part of these opposite parties the complainant is not entitled to get any of the reliefs claimed in the complaint. 

          In the version filed jointly by 3^rd  and 4^th opposite parties, they contend that, the complainant had applied for unit plan to pension plan of SBI Life Insurance vide proposal number 285564602 dated. 19.01.2008 along with a proposal deposit of Rs.86,000/- (Rupees eighty six thousand only).  Accordingly policy number 28016498609 with date of commencement as 29.01.2008 for a term of 5 years was issued and the frequency of premium payment was single.  The opposite parties 3 & 4 issued the policy to the complainant based on the details furnish in the proposal form signed by the complainant.  Hence these opposite parties pray to the Hon’ble Forum that there is no deficiency of service or unfair trade practice on their part.  According to 3^rd and 4^th opposite parties the demand of the complainant to pay Rs.62,000/- along with a compensation of Rs.25,000/- are outside the terms and conditions of the policy and does not have the sanction of law.  Hence they pray to the Hon’ble Forum to dismiss the complaint. 

The complainant filed IA 154/2016 to implead 3^rd and 4^th opposite parties as supplemental opposite parties and 155/2016 for the consequential amendment both IA’s were allowed.  The documents marked on the side of the complainant consisted of Ext.A1 series and on the side of the opposite parties Exts.B1 to B5.  Opposite parties were also heard.  They also filed chief affidavits. 

          The following issues are considered in this case. 

1.  Whether there is any deficiency in service and/or unfair trade practice   on the part of opposite parties 1,2,3 &4 ?

2.If so, what is the relief and cost ?
Issues 1 & 2

The case of the complainant is that on 19.01.2008, the complainant

contacted the 1^st opposite party bank to make a fixed deposit of Rs.86,000/- (Rupees eighty six thousand only) and she was made to believe that Rs.86,000/- (Rupees eighty six thousand only) collected from her was invested in fixed deposit for five years and for this fixed deposit no document was given to her.  Only after the maturity period, the complainant came to now that she did not make a fixed deposit but accepted SBI Life Insurance – Unit Plus II Pension Plan.  On 20.02.2014 the complainant caused to send a lawyer notice to the 1^st opposite party; a copy of the lawyer notice, the acknowledgement card and postal receipt are marked as Ext.A1 series, for which no reply was received from the 1^st opposite party.  Hence, the complainant considers that deficiency in service and unfair trade practice have occurred on the part of opposite parties and prays to Hon’ble Forum to direct the opposite parties to return to her Rs.86,000/- (Rupees eighty six thousand only) collected from her plus interest there on up to this date plus compensation of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand only) for mental agony suffered plus any other relief.  1^st and 2^nd opposite parties deny the allegation that on 19.01.2008 the complainant approached the 1^st opposite party to make a fixed deposit of Rs.62,000/- (Rupees sixty two thousand only) in the 1^st opposite party bank who made the complainant sign some forms stating that they were necessary for receiving fixed deposit.  They also deny as false that the complainant came to know that it was SBI Life – Unit Plus II Pension Plan of SBI Life Insurance Co.Ltd, that was accepted and not fixed deposit only when the complainant approached the 1^st opposite party to withdraw the amount.  According to 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties, the complainant has invested the amount in SBI Life Insurance Plan whose particulars are stated in the relevant policy document marked as Ext.B1, issued to her, knowingly and consciously, and the complainant has chosen to invest her money in SBI Life Insurance Plan after fully understanding the merits and demerits of the plan.  1^st and 2^nd opposite parties also contend that they have not received any amount from the complainant by way of fixed deposit and hence there is no deficiency of service/unfair trade practice on their part.  According to 3^rd and 4^th opposite parties, the complainant had applied for Unit Plus II Pension Plan as per her proposal No: 285564602 dated.19.10.2008 along with a proposal deposit of Rs.86,000/- (Rupees eighty six thousand only) vide Ext.A1 series.  Accordingly policy No: 28016498609 was issued to the complainant and the terms and conditions of the policy are also stated in the relevant policy document marked as Ext.B2.  3^rd and 4^th opposite parties also contend that the original policy document sent to the complainant was not received and undelivered.  Moreover they have sent to the complainant letters marked as Exts.B3, B4 & B5; Ext.B3 indicates options available to the complainant, Ext.B4 is a transaction cum unit statement for the period from 29.01.2008 to 31.01.2013 and Ext.B5 is an annuity option sheet/letter providing the current Personal Pension Account and the annuity payable at the current rate.  Therefore opposite party’s 3 & 4 contend that they have not committed any deficiency in their service/unfair trade practice to the complainant. 

          Hence opposite parties 1, 2, 3 & 4 pray to the Hon’ble Forum to dismiss the complaint because the demand of the complainant to pay Rs.62,000/- (Rupees Sixty two thousand only) plus a compensation of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand only)  is outside the terms and conditions of the policy and does not have the sanction of law. 

          From the documentary evidences submitted it is clear to the Hon’ble Forum that complainant has not been seen to have made a fixed deposit of Rs.86,000/- (Rupees eighty six thousand only), but invested the amount in SBI Life – Unit Plus II Pension Policy issued by SBI Life Insurance Co.Ltd.  We observe that the complainant has failed to produce fixed deposit receipt to support her argument that she has made a fixed deposit of Rs.86,000/- (Rupees eighty six thousand only) in 1^st opposite party bank; at the same time opposite parties have produced documentary evidences which show that the complainant has filled up and signed the proposal form No.285564602 dated.19.01.2008 for SBI Life – Unit Plus II Pension Plan and she has been issued the relevant policy No: 28016498609 on the basis of the above proposal form.  Hence we view that opposite parties 1,2,3, & 4 have been found not to have committed any deficiency of service and/or unfair trade practice.

          Under these circumstances, the complaint is dismissed.

Pronounced in the open court on this the 21^st   day of August 2017. 

                                                                                                                                 Sd/-

                      Shiny.P.R.

                      President 

                          Sd/-     

                      Suma.K.P.

                      Member

                           Sd/-

    V.P.Anantha Narayanan

                    Member

Appendix

Exhibits marked on the side of complainant

Ext.A1 Series -  Photo copy of Registered Lawyer Notice sent to 1^st opposite party

                       bank,  acknowledgement card & Postal Receipt

Exhibits marked on the side of Opposite parties

Ext.B1          -  Copy of the proposal form submitted by the complainant

Ext.B2          -  Copy of the policy document issued to the complainant

Ext.B3           -  Copy of the letter dated.04.10.2012 sent to the complainant

                         indicating options available

Ext.B4          -  Copy of the transaction  cum unit statement dated.26.07.2016 from

                         29.01.2008 to 31.01.2013

Ext.B5          -  Copy of the annual annuity option letter dated.01.08.2016 sent to the

                         complainant

Witness examined on the side of complainant

Nil

Witness examined on the side of opposite party

Nil

Cost   

          Nil