BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,
ERNAKULAM.
Date of filing : 03.10.2013
Date of Order : 12.04.2016
Present :-
Shri. Cherian. K. Kuriakose, President.
Shri. Sheen Jose, Member.
Smt. V.K. Beena Kumari, Member.
C.C. No. 678/2013
Between
Soniya K. Paul | :: | Complainant |
D/o Paulose, aged 39, Keezhacheril House, Vadavukodu P.O., Ernakulam, Pin – 682 310. Rep. by her power of attorney holder Judy Joseph, s/o Joseph, aged 44, Kollammavu parambil house, Ambalamedu P.O., Pin – 682 303. | (By Adv. Roy Vrghese, 'Olimolath', Pancode P.O., Ernaklulam-682 310) |
And
1. M/s. Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Company Limited | :: | Opposite Party |
Rep. by its Managing Director, West Hub, 2nd floor, Bajaj Finserv, Behind Weikfield IT Building, Viman Nagar, Nagar Road, Pune – 411 014. 2. M/s. Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Company Limited, rep. by its Manager, 3rd floor, Ravi's Arcade, Near Padma Junction, M.G. Road, Kochi – 15. | (By Adv. Jeswin P. Varghese, Vattoly Complex, Kombara Jn., Cochin - 18) |
O R D E R
Cherian K. Kuriakose, President
A brief statement of facts of this complaint is as follows:-
This is a complaint filed by Smt. Sonia K. Paul through her power of attorney holder alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party Insurance Company in not utilizing their expertise in the matter of share trading using the money invested by the complainant linked with insurance policy. It is clearly mentioned in the complaint that the opposite parties had offered that they will invest the deposit amount in share market and they are having an expert team to manage the fund and deposit according to the share market and market conditions. The prayer of the complainant in the complaint is to direct the opposite parties to refund Rs. 85,000/- with 12% interest thereon which the opposite parties had realised by the complainant for the defective service provided.
2. According to the learned Counsel the service was found to be defective since the complainant did not get appreciation of her money as promised.
3. Notice was issued to the opposite parties, They appeared and contested the matter by filing their respective versions refuting the claim of the complainant inter-alia resisting the complaint on the question of jurisdiction and maintainability. However the complainant goes to mark in evidence Exts. A1 to A15 and the opposite parties also had produced 10 documents marked in evidence as Exts. B1 to B10.
4. Though voluminous evidence in the form of evidence produced, the initial question to be resolved is with regard to the maintainability of the complaint before this Forum. It is right that when insurance policy was taken by a person for investment of the premium amount in the share market, for speculative gain the complaint must not come within the purview of the C.P. Act, 1986. The decision reported in opposite parties to C.P.R. 389 rendered by the National Commission is one among such series of cases wherein the above said principle was reiterated. During the course of argument the learned Counsel for the complainant had fairly conceded that the subject matter of the complaint having been revolving on the pedestal of the speculative gain and based on the tenor of the decision rendered by the Hon'ble National Commission and also by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The complainant may be permitted to withdraw the complaint with liberty to file appropriate proceedings before the Civil Court to enforce his rights.
5. Considering the fact and circumstances as above, we are inclined to accept the request of the complainant to withdraw the complaint for the purpose of pursuing his remedy elsewhere and in such an event we find that the complainant would be entitled to get the period of limitation if any excluded as provided under the decision rendered by the Apex Court in the Lakshmi Engineering Works case.
In the result, we permit the withdrawal of the complaint with the above said observation and we treat the complaint as closed as far as this Forum is concerned.
Pronounced in the open Forum on this the 12th day of April, 2016.
Sd/- Cherian. K. Kuriakose, President Sd/- Sheen Jose, Member.
Sd/- V.K. Beena Kumari, Member.
Forwarded / By Order
Senior Superintendent
Date of despatch of the Order :
By Hand :
By Post :
A P P E N D I X
Complainant's Exhibits :-
Exhibit A1 Exhibit A2 Exhibit A3 Exhibit A4 Exhibit A5 Exhibit A6 Exhibit A7 Exhibit A8 Exhibit A9 Exhibit A10 Exhibit A11 Exhibit A12 Exhibit A13 Exhibit A14 Exhibit A15 | :: | Power of attorney Statement of account Request for policy details Order in CC 508/12 Guidelines of Insurance policy Policy Withdrawal payout cheque Request letter Line chart Line chart Information letter Information letter Statement Statement Statement |
Opposite party's Exhibits :-
Exhibit B1 :: True copy of Proposal Form
Exhibit B2 “ of Partial withdrawal payout cheque
Exhibit B3 “ of surrender request form
Exhibit B4 “ of Payout request letter
Exhibit B5 “ of Surrender payout cheque
Exhibit B6 “ of proposal form of policy
Exhibit B7 “ of partial withdrawal payout cheque
Exhibit B8 “ of surrender request form
Exhibit B9 “ of payout request letter
Exhibit B10 “ of surrender payout cheque
Depositions :: Nil
