Anil Singla, aged about 40 s/o Sh.O.P.Singla, R/o H.No.696, Sector 69, SAS Nagar, Distt. Mohali (Punjab.)
2] Shipra Singla, aged about 36 w/o Anil Singla, R/o H.No.696, Sector 69, SAS Nagar, Mohali, Punjab, through her husband Sh.Anil Singla.
……Appellant/
V e r s u s
1] M/s ICICI Prudential Life Insurance Company Ltd. having its registered office at ICICI Pru Life Towers, 1089 Appa Saheb Marg, Prabha Devi, Mumbai, Maharashtra, through its Chairperson Ms. Chanda D.Kochhar.
2] M/s. ICICI Prudential Life Insurance Company Ltd., having its registered office at ICICI Pru Life Towers, 1089 Appa Saheb Marg, Prabha Devi, Mumbai, Maharashtra through its MD & CEO Sandeep Bakshi
3] M/s. ICICI Prudential Life Insurance Company Ltd., having its registered office at ICICI Pru Life Towers, 1089 Appa Saheb Marg, Prabha Devi, Mumbai, Maharashtra through Ms.Anita Pai, EVP – Customer Service & Technology (Ms.Anita Pal is the front page approver & signatory of the policy document)
4] ICICI Prudential Life Insurance Company Ltd., having its Branch Office at SCO 9,10,11, First Floor, Sector 9-D, U.T., Chandigarh, through its Branch Manager.
....Respondent(s)
BEFORE: JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER (Retd.), PRESIDENT
MRS. NEENA SANDHU, MEMBER
Argued by: Sh. Rohit Dheer, Advocate for the appellants.
MRS. NEENA SANDHU, MEMBER
This is an appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) filed by the complainants/appellants against the order dated 28.12.2012, passed by the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, UT, Chandigarh (hereinafter referred to as the District Forum) vide which the complaint filed by him, against the Opposite Parties, was dismissed. However, the liberty was granted to the complainants to approach the appropriate court of competent jurisdiction for redressal of their grievance.
2 The facts, in brief, are that the complainants being lured by the agents of Opposite Parties, about the good returns, paid a total sum of Rs.13,50,000/- for investment in various insurance policies whereupon six insurance policies (Annexures C-3 to C-8), as detailed in Para No.4, were issued by the Insurance Company/Opposite Parties . It was stated that the agent got some blank documents signed from the complainants, which were neither filled nor singed by them. It was further stated the Opposite Parties, through their official had grossly misled the complainant and illegally issued six insurance policies, as detailed in Para NO.4 of the complaint. It was further stated that the said insurance policies were issued in total contravention of IRDA Regulations, 2000. It was further stated that on getting information from IRDA under RTI Act, it was found that Ms.Shivani Sharma, who was working with the Opposite Parties, as Insurance Advisor under Code NO.00382533 and was signatory to all the insurance policies, was not an IRDA approved Insurance Agent. It was further stated the complainants were told that all insurance plans issued to them were one time premium payment plans. It was further stated that on receipt of policy documents of the said six policies, the complainants were shocked to see that their signatures on the policy documents, were manipulated, and the application form and the EBI forms contained in the policy documents were not exactly the same, which had been signed by the complainants. It was further stated that, moreover, the policies issued were regular premium policies, which were never sought by the complainants. It was further stated that the matter was taken up with the Opposite Parties, and the complainants made several visits to their Office and contacted their officers to seek the refund of their money with interest, but no effect. Hence, this complaint was filed.
3 The Opposite Parties, did not file reply & evidence in spite of availing of several opportunities. Hence their defence was struck off vide order dated 15.11.2012.
4 The complainants led evidence, in support of their case.
5 After hearing the Counsel for the parties, and, on going through the evidence and record, the District Forum dismissed the complaint, as stated in the opening para of this order.
2. Feeling aggrieved, the instant appeal, has been filed by the appellants/complainants
3. We have heard the arguments of the Counsel for the appellants/complainants, and have gone through the evidence and record of the case carefully, on the point, as to whether the appeal should be admitted for regular hearing or not.
4. The Counsel for the appellants, submitted that the order of the District Forum is erroneous and invalid, as it while passing the order dated 15.11.2012, in the same complaint dismissed the application filed by respondent No.1 to 4 wherein they took a specific plea of jurisdiction. But while passing the final order it wrongly dismissed the complaint on the ground of jurisdiction. Hence the order of the District Forum was not sustainable. He further submitted that the District Forum failed to appreciate the evidence, on record, in a proper manner that the complainants were lured to invest by the official of ICICI Prudential Life Insurance Co. Ltd. at Chandigarh. He further submitted that the officials of the respondent ICICI Prudential Life Insurance Co. manipulated the insurance policy documents, which were illegally routed through an incompetent and unauthorized employee, working for and on behalf of the respondents. He further submitted that the District Forum failed to appreciate the fact that there was deficiency, in rendering service, on the part of the Opposite Parties and, hence the order of the District Forum was liable to be set aside being illegal.
5. A thorough reading of the record reveals that the complainants/appellants in para No.9 of their complaint, clearly made allegations of manipulation of their signatures, and manipulation of policy documents by the respondents. Not only this, the complainant even in appeal in para No.14 made the same allegations of manipulation. Furthermore, the complainants made complaint before the police authority, regarding cheating, fraud, criminal conspiracy in respect of the matter, in dispute, aforesaid, and the same is evident from Annenxure C-10. Thus in this situation of the case, it is held that the Consumer Fora had got no jurisdiction to entertain and adjudicate upon the complaint, containing the allegations of manipulation, fraud and forgery as the consumer cases are to be decided by way of resorting to the summary procedure. But in case of allegations of manipulation, fraud and forgery voluminous evidence is required and the same could not be decided in the proceedings, which are summary in nature, before the Consumer Fora. Hence the District by placing reliance upon the case titled as Bright Transport Company Vs. Sangli Sahakari Bank Ltd., II(2012) CPJ 151 (NC),rightly dismissed the complaint on the ground of jurisdiction.
6. The next plea of the appellant that the District Forum on 15.11.2012 dismissed the application of the Opposite Parties, wherein they took objections regarding jurisdiction and principles of resjudicata. He further submitted that once it dismissed the application of the Opposite Party on the point of jurisdiction and principles of resjudicata, how could it while passing the final order dismiss the complaint on the ground of jurisdiction. We do not find merit in this contention of the appellants. No doubt, the Opposite Parties, in their application, which was dismissed by the District Forum, vide order dated 15.11.2012, took objection regarding jurisdiction and resjudicata but it only gave its decision in regard to the objection of principles of resjudicata to the effect that mere filing of a case in the Civil Court by the complainants, could not de-bar him from filing the Consumer Complaint in the District Fora as per provisions of Section 3 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Hence this contention of the appellants is rejected being devoid of merit.
7. In view of the above discussion, we are of the opinion that there is no merit in the contentions raised by the appellants. The order passed by the District Forum is perfectly legal and valid and does not call for any interference. There is no merit in this appeal and therefore, it cannot be admitted for regular hearing. The appeal is accordingly dismissed in limine, with no order as to costs.
8. Copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge.
